I thought the exact same thing when I was in my TPR course. I'd say some of the passages are truly out-of-bounds, and are very MCAT unlike. The verbal passages are good practice, but I think the questions they ask are ridiculous sometimes. Also, the verbal strategy offered by TPR is terrible. Some aspects of it, like forming main idea, deciphering what the question is into laymen's terms, and being able to get a feel for what is going to be asked about the passage while reading it (this part comes with tons of practice), are all beneficial. But, I thought skipping passages to find the KILLER passage, and writing out things about the passage was a TOTAL waste of my time. I was getting 5's and 6's on AAMC's/TPR passages with TPR strategy. The day before I took my exam I said eff TPR strategy, go in order, do my own thing, scored a 9. See Examkrackers for the verbal method because TPR was a detriment to my overall result. But, just know that the upper number AAMC (8, 9, 10, 13, etc...) tests are the most MCAT-like for current tests for verbal and the other sections as well.
The biology book was pretty comprehensive (teacher was an arrogant, know-it-all who really knew little), my physics and ochem teachers were baller, and I could've taught GChem better than my teacher (or so I think, but I'm sitting in the back criticizing, who knows how good of a teacher I would truly be, it just felt that way).
