Is EK 101 Verbal Easier than the Real Thing?

[nemo123]

I've taken all the AAMC full lengths and I've noticed that the passages on the AAMC full lengths are much harder and much more out of grasp than the passage in the EK 101 book. I also feel like some of the questions in EK 101 are more reading comprehension based (as in you can find half the answers written directly in the passage) as opposed to the AAMC ones, where most of the answers are more implications. Does anyone else see this? I'm just nervous because AAMC full lengths seem so much harder than the EK ones.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[plumazul]

I've taken all the AAMC full lengths and I've noticed that the passages on the AAMC full lengths are much harder and much more out of grasp than the passage in the EK 101 book. I also feel like some of the questions in EK 101 are more reading comprehension based (as in you can find half the answers written directly in the passage) as opposed to the AAMC ones, where most of the answers are more implications. Does anyone else see this? I'm just nervous because AAMC full lengths seem so much harder than the EK ones.

I think I find the reading comprehension ones harder sometimes... I've struggled with some of the TPR ones and after evaluating them I noticed that many of the answers referred to specific one-line things from the passages. Sooooo I find the AAMC ones a bit easier than EK. But if the EK ones really are more comprehension based (i haven't definitively noticed this though), that's what I find harder at this point. I don't like remembering specific tiny passage thingys.

We are all wired a little differently 😉

 

[slz1900]

Since you've taken all the full lengths and they represent the real thing the best, all indications point to you finding the real thing more challenging than ek. You could get more practice from the tpr book that people here recommend if you've got time. I've only taken aamc 3 but I found the verbal much easier than ek, so to each his own.

 

[cuculici1]

I've taken all the AAMC full lengths and I've noticed that the passages on the AAMC full lengths are much harder and much more out of grasp than the passage in the EK 101 book. I also feel like some of the questions in EK 101 are more reading comprehension based (as in you can find half the answers written directly in the passage) as opposed to the AAMC ones, where most of the answers are more implications. Does anyone else see this? I'm just nervous because AAMC full lengths seem so much harder than the EK ones.

I think the AAMCs are slightly easier, but this probably comes down to personal preference more than anything.

 

[shushumiga]

I think EK101 is much easier than AAMC. The passages in the EK are easier to comprehend and not as dense. Also the questions are not as difficult as the AAMC ones.

 

[nemo123]

I think the AAMCs are slightly easier, but this probably comes down to personal preference more than anything.

I don't know. I thought AAMC 3, 4, and 5 VR were easier than the others (namely 7 and 8, even though oddly I did the best on 7 and 8).

I think it's just that the passages on the AAMC are so much more dense and the questions are harder. Bleh. I'm hoping I don't screw up on verbal on the actual MCAT.

 

[nemo123]

I think I find the reading comprehension ones harder sometimes... I've struggled with some of the TPR ones and after evaluating them I noticed that many of the answers referred to specific one-line things from the passages. Sooooo I find the AAMC ones a bit easier than EK. But if the EK ones really are more comprehension based (i haven't definitively noticed this though), that's what I find harder at this point. I don't like remembering specific tiny passage thingys.

We are all wired a little differently 😉

Really!?!? But your AAMC scores are nuts!!!

 

[nemo123]

I think EK101 is much easier than AAMC. The passages in the EK are easier to comprehend and not as dense. Also the questions are not as difficult as the AAMC ones.

Yeah, exactly right!?

(Lol sorry about the multiple posts, I don't know how to put multiple quotes into one post lol).

 

[cuculici1]

I don't know. I thought AAMC 3, 4, and 5 VR were easier than the others (namely 7 and 8, even though oddly I did the best on 7 and 8).

I think it's just that the passages on the AAMC are so much more dense and the questions are harder. Bleh. I'm hoping I don't screw up on verbal on the actual MCAT.

Yeah I agree that the verbal on AAMC 7 was tough, I had a huge "wtf" moment while reading that one passage about the poet discussing nature. I also agree with you that the AAMC passages are more dense, however I think the questions are a bit easier when it comes to eliminating bad answers and choosing the right one. I actually found TPRH Verbal Workbook to be most representative of the AAMC verbal, not Examkrackers.

 

[angldrps]

I think EK101 is much easier than AAMC. The passages in the EK are easier to comprehend and not as dense. Also the questions are not as difficult as the AAMC ones.

this was my experience as well. While EK does a good job of presenting questions that are a good representation of the questions on the real deal, EK's passages are not as dense and as boring as AAMC passages.

 

[angldrps]

yeah i agree that the verbal on aamc 7 was tough, i had a huge "wtf" while reading that one passage about the poet discussing nature. I also agree with you that the aamc passages are more dense, however i think the questions are a bit easier when it comes to eliminating bad answers and choosing the right one. i actually found tprh verbal workbook to be most representative of the aamc verbal, not examkrackers.

+1