VR Question Stems and Answer Choice Nuances

[texan2414]

Hey guys,

I have been doing VR practice and wanted to share some of my thoughts. I have read the Official AAMC Guide for VR section and attempted the 6 passages that follow them. They give lots of advice on identifying "distractors" and give pointers on why one answer choice is wrong.

Today I took Kaplan VR Section Test 2 and post-phrasing it revealed several inconsistencies in logical reasoning that is needed for AAMC. Two examples are below:
- http://puu.sh/brbz4.jpg
- http://puu.sh/brbDD.jpg

*The red text at the end is MY argument as to why the Kaplan answer is wrong.

I have also noted similar mistakes (namely fallacies in answer choices) in EK 101 and TPR Verbal Workbook. As you know, you can and should expect to be evaluated on distinguishing between varying "shades of gray" and subtle nuances in answer choices on test day.

Please share your experience in dealing with and identifying such logical inconsistencies. I know no prep company is prefect but knowing the degree of preciseness of prep materials will give us all a some idea how to gauge the effectiveness of that prep program.

Thanks,

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jason12]

Hey guys,

I have been doing VR practice and wanted to share some of my thoughts. I have read the Official AAMC Guide for VR section and attempted the 6 passages that follow them. They give lots of advice on identifying "distractors" and give pointers on why one answer choice is wrong.

Today I took Kaplan VR Section Test 2 and post-phrasing it revealed several inconsistencies in logical reasoning that is needed for AAMC. Two examples are below:
- http://puu.sh/brbz4.jpg
- http://puu.sh/brbDD.jpg

*The red text at the end is MY argument as to why the Kaplan answer is wrong.

I have also noted similar mistakes (namely fallacies in answer choices) in EK 101 and TPR Verbal Workbook. As you know, you can and should expect to be evaluated on distinguishing between varying "shades of gray" and subtle nuances in answer choices on test day.

Please share your experience in dealing with and identifying such logical inconsistencies. I know no prep company is prefect but knowing the degree of preciseness of prep materials will give us all a some idea how to gauge the effectiveness of that prep program.

Thanks,

the advice that Ive been hearing over and over is to not listen to other prep companies logic or explanation and only use their material to practice timing and endurance but in terms of improving your logic AAMC is your best bet. theyre the people who write the AAMC verbal material period, no other company no matter how good they are will not provide you with the same logic as AAMC.

 

[Sammy1024]

You're not supposed to divulge in the reasoning for other test prep companies except AAMC because the only opinion/ mindset that matters is the AAMC.

 

[makingthejump]

I totally agree. I was going to use some other sources to study VR but realized that it could actually be detrimental. I instead am taking every single VR passage written by AAMC and analyzing their rationale behind why the correct answer is the correct answer. I feel that understanding how to think like them is essential to crushing the VR section. It is also more efficient to take this approach than to waste time understanding the logical reasoning of multiple exam prep resources who have flawed thinking and cannot be on the same page as aamc.

 

[texan2414]

I totally agree. I was going to use some other sources to study VR but realized that it could actually be detrimental. I instead am taking every single VR passage written by AAMC and analyzing their rationale behind why the correct answer is the correct answer. I feel that understanding how to think like them is essential to crushing the VR section. It is also more efficient to take this approach than to waste time understanding the logical reasoning of multiple exam prep resources who have flawed thinking and cannot be on the same page as aamc.

This is an excellent strategy.

 

[RC4L]

I have to disagree a little with your argument regarding the links you posted. My philosophy with verbal is to stay brutally consistent with the author and quite often, that boils down to taking your logic out of the equation. In the first link you provided, the question asks you to give the author's purpose for mentioning red giants and mira variables. The passage says, "*It is suspected* that the evolutionary course of a binary system is predetermined. " There is your answer. The author is very precise about giving you the information from an unbiased perspective which is evident by the "it is suspected." Answer D says "TO SHOW that the evolution of giant stars IS predetermined." This is distinctly contradictory to the author because the author made it very clear that this idea was suspected but not certain. You have to take your logic out of the equation here. Regardless of how the word theory is properly defined, answer B is the only one that does not defy the author which is the entire purpose of the question. You have to be able to transfer what is in the passage to the answer without any interpretation. Ill do the second in a minute.

 

[TheMightyTexan]

I have to disagree a little with your argument regarding the links you posted. My philosophy with verbal is to stay brutally consistent with the author and quite often, that boils down to taking your logic out of the equation. In the first link you provided, the question asks you to give the author's purpose for mentioning red giants and mira variables. The passage says, "*It is suspected* that the evolutionary course of a binary system is predetermined. " There is your answer. The author is very precise about giving you the information from an unbiased perspective which is evident by the "it is suspected." Answer D says "TO SHOW that the evolution of giant stars IS predetermined." This is distinctly contradictory to the author because the author made it very clear that this idea was suspected but not certain. You have to take your logic out of the equation here. Regardless of how the word theory is properly defined, answer B is the only one that does not defy the author which is the entire purpose of the question. You have to be able to transfer what is in the passage to the answer without any interpretation. Ill do the second in a minute.

Solid advise, i'm going to keep this in mind while taking my practice fl today, hopefully its what i need to start breaking 10s!

 

[RC4L]

My breakthrough with verbal happened when I learned the difference between using the passage to answer the question vs. interpreting the passage and using my interpretation to answer the questions. The most important thing you can do in verbal is to stand by the author in the most precise way regardless of how much sense it makes. If an answer choice contradicts the author, it is wrong no matter what. You see questions like this all the time where the answer makes sense but it is referencing an idea in the passage as an absolute rather than an what it is, an idea.
The most significant things I see in the passage from the first link are : 1)" The EXACT evolutionary course that turns a binary system into symbiotic one is a matter of CONJECTURE." - This wraps up the importance of this paragraph very nicely. The author is clearly saying that the doubtless, true evolutionary course of the subject matter is in debate rather than defined. This line tells you that there will be no certainty about the subject matter if the author is concerned. Huge red flag for any extreme answers with words like "always," "never," etc. 2) Notice that before every reference given, the author begins with something like "it is suspected" or "it is thought to be." These lines should make elimination very easy. Evidence for a theory as used in this context does not insinuate evidence for the theory being a fact.


Ok so for the second question, it asks for an incorrect assumption regarding symbiotic stars. The passage initially explains that a fraction of binary stars emit radiation that falls outside the visible spectrum. The idea is expanded upon in the following paragraph with " This odd distribution of radiation is best described by the pairing of a cool red giant and an intensely hot small star THAT IS VIRTUALLY IN CONTACT WITH ITS COMPANION AS THE TWO TRAVEL AROUND A COMMON CENTER. Such objects have become known as SYMBIOTIC STARS." The author said that symbiotic stars are virtually in contact while traveling around a common center, not each other as stated in answer A. This is clearly contradictory to the passage. The statement in choice B is correct because although the passage initially states that particular radiation comes from a fraction of binary stars, it goes on to say that this odd radiation is a product of pairing between the cool and hot stars in virtual contact, known as a symbiotic star. The author is defining a symbiotic star by the peculiar radiation emitted via the pairing of the two.
You are using a piece of the passage to answer the question and by itself, that piece does validate your answer. In relation to the entire passage however, that piece of information has a different meaning. For the sake of strategy, this is a great example of why it hurts more than it helps to look back at the passage while you answer. It is easy to find a piece of information to validate an answer choice but in the context of the entire passage, that piece will often mislead you. You have to be able to keep the entire idea of the passage connected to the details because otherwise you will misconstrue the true idea. I don't know if that was the error here but I figured it was worth pointing out.

 

[texan2414]

Thanks RC4L for your response,

For the first link, I think I figured out why answer choice D was indeed erroneous. It was wrong on my part to use speculation and conjecture as something that explicitly "shows" an assertion to be true. This was the subtle nuance that needed to be addressed in this question. Thanks for helping me understand it.

But I am still confused about the second question. It is quite right that the hot and cold stars are not orbiting one another but rather some other center. (Even though the word orbit is not clearly defined in the paragraph, thus forcing us to make an assumption, but perhaps that point is irrelevant here).

What I don't understand how the answer choice made the connection between symbiotic stars and its radiation falling OUTSIDE the visible spectrum. This, I think you would agree, forces us to make the assumption that UV and IR regions are outside the visible spectrum and this is the big assumption that needs to be made in order to make it an accurate statement, thus invaliding it as the correct answer. I still believe answer choice B is the correct (as its the one that's wrong) because it makes the assumption that the reader knows IR and UV fall outside of visible light spectrum.

Would you agree with me that AAMC would not expect us to make certain assumptions about scientific information?

You are quite correct in mentioning that sometimes it might hurt to look back at the passage. You state that in this particular context, finding the relevant piece of information might be misleading because it doesn't address the passage as a whole. I don't think the rest of the passage here gives us any information with respect to IR-UV boundary of the visible spectrum.

In this instance, both A and B are the right answers because these are statements incorrect with the passage. This is my opinion, and I would like your feedback with this conclusion.

 

[RC4L]

No prob hope it helped!

Ok so the passage states, "Binary systems radiate strongly in the visible region of the spectrum, but some of them do so even more strongly at both shorter and longer wavelengths : in the ultraviolet(UV) region and in the infrared(IR) and radio regions."
When the author says that some binary systems(later described at symbiotic) radiate even more strongly at shorter and longer wavelengths, he is using the description "more strongly at both shorter and longer wavelengths" in reference to the visible spectrum, meaning they are not in the visible spectrum. He specifies what those wavelengths are specifically with a colon, followed by UV, IR , and radio waves. It may be not be in your face obvious but that author is saying that these wavelengths of radiation are not part of the visible spectrum before saying exactly what they are. I think the author is also assuming that everyone should know these waves(radio waves especially) can't be seen. There is more supporting material in the following paragraph where the author says they were first seen with satellite capable of detecting such radiation.
After all the details regarding these special binary systems, the author wraps it up for the reader by saying, "such objects have become known as symbiotic stars." In regards to answer A, the author says the two stars are virtually in contact with one another as the two(a unit) travel around a common center. A "common center" indicated that they have something in common : they both travel around the same thing. This statement would be incorrect if they traveled around each other.
I understand the passage definitely makes more sense if you know the relevant material already, but there are no assumptions to be made if read carefully. In a situation like this where you are debating between two question and you know one of them is a 8direct contradiction to the author*, ALWAYS run with it. Even if choice B bugs the crap out of you, there is no way that choice A cannot be the right answer to choose. To be quite honest I have seen AAMC put stuff like this in verbal frequently. You wont be asked to know something you aren't expected to know and although I doubt verbal will ever require you to apply your PS/BS knowledge outright, the visible spectrum and other major waves are commonly tested on the MCAT so you technically, you are expected to know the information being presented in this passage. The questions are made to be misleading and tricky but you have to remember that both you and the test makers have one thing in common which is that you both have to stick to the author religiously. How long do you spend reading the passage?

 

[texan2414]

@RC4L

Thanks for your feedback. It definitely reassures me to know that you think likewise that AAMC won't put ambiguous answers like these on the VR. I think your argument that a direct, explicit contradictory assertion from a passage being the incorrect answer (and thus the correct answer choice in this instance) is a good one.

I spend about ~3-4 mins on avg reading the passage. I am not one of those fast-paced readers who can read between the lines and still retain meaning.

I think the 2 questions we discussed precisely illustrates my worry with VR. As I have taken all the AAMCs last year, I am left with little-to-no "official" material to prepare and gauge myself with. My scores on Kaplan/TPRH are all over the place and some of the passages in EK101 are kind of a joke. But I guess I have no other option but to stick with these resources. What do you think?

 

[RC4L]

@RC4L

Thanks for your feedback. It definitely reassures me to know that you think likewise that AAMC won't put ambiguous answers like these on the VR. I think your argument that a direct, explicit contradictory assertion from a passage being the incorrect answer (and thus the correct answer choice in this instance) is a good one.

I spend about ~3-4 mins on avg reading the passage. I am not one of those fast-paced readers who can read between the lines and still retain meaning.

I think the 2 questions we discussed precisely illustrates my worry with VR. As I have taken all the AAMCs last year, I am left with little-to-no "official" material to prepare and gauge myself with. My scores on Kaplan/TPRH are all over the place and some of the passages in EK101 are kind of a joke. But I guess I have no other option but to stick with these resources. What do you think?

What I meant by my earlier post was that AAMC does in fact have a lot of passages like these. The whole concept behind verbal reasoning is to test your ability to read something ambiguous and apply it effectively. When you are doing verbal you have to remember that every answer is right in front of you in the passage and nowhere else. It may seem like it's asking you something that was not explained or that has more than one answer but that is exactly how it is designed to feel and you have to take that into account while preparing. I used TPR Hyperlearning and EK1001 for daily practice and both were great resources in my opinion. Ever once in awhile you might come across something questionable but AAMC is prone to the same issues as well. Realistically, the verbal on the real thing isn't always going to be just like what you see in the practice AAMC material either because the exam is not made by the same people each time. After taking the MCAT three times I can't honestly say AAMC verbal wasn't any more like the real thing than EK1001 and TPR except for the visual format. It is critical to build an effective strategy and practice it until you can execute it consistently because there is no guarantee what you will be tested with. Train yourself to look for inconsistencies rather than correct answers because you will be able to eliminate three answer choices more often than being certain of one correct answer. If you read the passage carefully and follow the author's thought process, it becomes much easier to spot the errors. Don't worry about re-using the AAMC tests again this year because they should be really vague by now and they are great tools for studying how to answer correctly. In all honesty I thought Kaplan verbal was too straightforward. All the practice passages I did were really cut and paste which doesn't help. You want to practice with difficult material!

 

[csx]

What I meant by my earlier post was that AAMC does in fact have a lot of passages like these. The whole concept behind verbal reasoning is to test your ability to read something ambiguous and apply it effectively. When you are doing verbal you have to remember that every answer is right in front of you in the passage and nowhere else. It may seem like it's asking you something that was not explained or that has more than one answer but that is exactly how it is designed to feel and you have to take that into account while preparing. I used TPR Hyperlearning and EK1001 for daily practice and both were great resources in my opinion. Ever once in awhile you might come across something questionable but AAMC is prone to the same issues as well. Realistically, the verbal on the real thing isn't always going to be just like what you see in the practice AAMC material either because the exam is not made by the same people each time. After taking the MCAT three times I can't honestly say AAMC verbal wasn't any more like the real thing than EK1001 and TPR except for the visual format. It is critical to build an effective strategy and practice it until you can execute it consistently because there is no guarantee what you will be tested with. Train yourself to look for inconsistencies rather than correct answers because you will be able to eliminate three answer choices more often than being certain of one correct answer. If you read the passage carefully and follow the author's thought process, it becomes much easier to spot the errors. Don't worry about re-using the AAMC tests again this year because they should be really vague by now and they are great tools for studying how to answer correctly. In all honesty I thought Kaplan verbal was too straightforward. All the practice passages I did were really cut and paste which doesn't help. You want to practice with difficult material!

I do well on EK (~10) but I did TPRH and failed that....I felt like the two sources were completely different

 

[RC4L]

I do well on EK (~10) but I did TPRH and failed that....I felt like the two sources were completely different

They are a little different but they test the same skill. There is no guarantee that the MCAT is going to be anymore like one than the other either. I did TPRH first, thought it was manageable, and then EK which I thought was more difficult. In the end, they were both very beneficial because they taught me how to put more weight into an effective application than in predicting what will show up. My MCAT verbal score was very similar to what I averaged in the second half of each book.