GMAT 675 595 to 675 with e-GMAT

Question

GMAT 675 — 595 to 675 — with e-GMAT

I asked whether I could work two sections at once. I was told no. I hated that answer, and it is the only reason this worked.

The question I asked, and the answer I got

Early on I asked whether I could do a little quant on the side while I worked verbal. I am impatient, and one section at a time felt like standing still. The answer was a very polite no — diagnostics allowed, nothing else, and until a section closed we were not opening the next. Nobody says this part out loud, so I will: I hated it. It is not the repetition that wears you down, it is sitting with your own errors.

Why I ended up on this course

I had sat the GMAT once already and walked away with a 595 — V80, Q81, DI78. Not a disaster score, and that was the problem: a reasonable base that hid where I was stuck. I needed something that would tell me, at the level of a single question block, which habits were quietly costing me points. That is why the e-GMAT course fit — it points at the block, not the section.

Verbal first, and the habit I had to break

My instinct in reading comprehension was to skim, decide I knew what the passage was about, and go to the questions — where the answer choices proved I had understood none of it. The fix was slower than I wanted: before touching a question, work out what each paragraph is doing, and whether it is adding context, contradicting the last one, or introducing a second author. I lost time on the first question and won it back on the next three. The cementing quizzes — short exam-level quizzes after each topic with a clear-or-re-clear threshold — are where I checked whether the habit had taken. Hard RC went from 54 percent to 89.

Boldface was the worst of it. What worked was labelling every sentence, not only the bolded ones: this is a claim, this supports it, this is the conclusion. Once each sentence's direction is on paper, the bolded ones place themselves.

Critical reasoning was subtler, and I caught it by keeping an error log against my cementing quiz results. My pre-thinking was fine — the gap I predicted was usually right. I was losing the point downstream, in answer-choice analysis, because I targeted a general flaw instead of the exact one. The choices I picked were not irrelevant; they were merely relevant. So I started asking one question as I read: is this targeting my argument, or the passage in general? Hard CR went from 50 percent to 80. V80 to V83.

Quant: the block I nearly wrote off

Quant felt fine coming in, so rather than sit through concepts I already had, we ran the diagnostics first and let them decide. That is what PACE does here — short diagnostic quizzes before a topic that tell you which lessons to skip and which to study. The verdict: fine nearly everywhere, not fine in number properties, specifically primes. Hard number-properties quizzes opened at 20 percent.

What I did next mattered more than the diagnosis. I pulled the block-level breakdown in Scholaranium to see which sub-areas were failing, worked back through the solutions on every miss, and found the concept was not the issue — my method was longer and clumsier than it needed to be. With the cleaner approach I re-drilled the hard set: 20 percent to 90.

Word problems were more stubborn, sales and purchase most of all. I was slow there, so I asked about speed. The read I got back was that it was not a speed issue, it was a setup issue. The honest reason that landed: when I chase speed, half the maths is in my head and half is on paper, and that is where the errors live. So I ignored the clock and laid out every quantity and constraint before solving. Hard word-problem quizzes went from 20 percent to 90.

Fundamentals were necessary and nowhere near sufficient. What built timed execution was the e-GMAT course's quant sectional mocks — full timed sections instead of untimed sets. I ran six and they bounced: 86, 80, 79, 82, 79, 82. That bouncing is the point; a method you own in practice can desert you at minute thirty. Across the four quant modules — number properties, word problems, algebra, advanced topics — accuracy closed at 90, 90, 90 and 85 percent. Q81 to Q85.

Data Insights, compressed — please do not copy this bit

Data sufficiency was my weak spot, and inside it the culprit was number properties again. The behavioural fix was mine: I had been carrying the first statement's information into my analysis of the second without noticing. Use statement one, genuinely put it down, take statement two alone, then combine. Hard data-sufficiency quizzes went from 20 percent to 80.

Then I closed the last three subsections in under a week, because I had an exam booked and was not moving it. That was only survivable because the DI course is split into those subsections with their own question-type variety, so you work one shape of question at a time, and the cementing quizzes carry the timing. Multi-source reasoning went from 37 percent to 100 on the hard set in a day. My first DI sectional mock landed at 80 against a target of 81. DI78 to DI82.

The last two weeks, and someone reading my data with me

All of this ran alongside a full-time job, and I would get home feeling lost, as if every section needed work and none was finished. So I asked my mentor, Kavyashree, for a day-by-day plan rather than a monthly milestone, and what came back was narrower than I expected: today is verbal, and inside verbal only the underperforming blocks. The reframe that did the most work was being told to stop chasing perfection — you cannot aim for 100 percent accuracy, and 70 to 80 in a weak block is good enough to move on.

That is what the mentorship gave me, and it is not teaching: reassurance when I could not tell whether a bad week meant anything, and someone reading my subsection block-level data beside me, naming a pattern I could not see from inside it. If you are working full-time and short on runway, look into Last Mile Push.

Mocks bounce, and what I would tell you

So nobody reads one mock as prophecy: 715, then 655 two days later, then 675 on the day. In the final week I stopped fixing errors and used mocks for stamina, and found the questions I missed there were often ones I got right in practice — not a process gap, just time pressure.

Do not measure yourself against whoever closed this in three months. But do give yourself an internal deadline — the more casually I prepped, the more it stretched. And close one section before you open the next, even on the days you hate it. Especially then.

pintukr · Answer

Interesting insights into the GMAT preparations. All the Best fpr the applications.

Rashie1 · Answer

wow! Congratulations on your score! All the best for applications!

Reon · Answer

Congrats on the 675 and all the best going forward

	Target Test Prep - Save up to $599 $400 Discount + $99 Bonus GMAT Club Tests
	e-GMAT: 60% Off on GMAT Focus Get to 735+ from any starting point
	Magoosh increases your score, guaranteed - 15% off ALL Magoosh GMAT plans with code GMATCLUB15 + Free GMAT Club Tests.
	Manhattan Prep: $99 Bonus Score Higher on Your GMAT Exam. Guaranteed.
	Experts' Global - ~~$1720~~ $960 End-to-End GMAT Prep + App Support: 150+ Videos, 2000+ Questions, 15 FLTs +
	GMATWhiz - Save up to 44%! Plus get a $99 bonus from GMAT Club when you buy a course. Sale ends Sept 7.
	GMAT Club Tests - Free Included with every course purchase of $149+ View all deals

GMAT 675 595 to 675 with e-GMAT

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards