Crack DAT test 1 help

[pfg459]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello all,

I have been non-stop studying for the DAT for the past two months, and have left PAT on the back burner (which I now know was foolish). I am consistently scoring 21-22 on the bio and QR sections, but I need help on the PAT.

I just took Crack the DAT PAT test #1 in the allotted 60 minutes time.. I was at about question #50 or so by the time 10 minutes hit, then i just eyeballed and guessed throughout the rest of the test..

What do I need to do to improve? I feel that 60 minutes is a huge crunch, I barely have time to finish the test, let alone make sure I answer the questions correctly...

Any information will be appreciated.

Thank you

 

[Shazzam]

What do you need to do to improve? Practice. Imagine doing BIO / CHM / OCHM w/o studying, you won't succeed. Same thing applies w/ the PAT.

 

[SaveTheRhinos]

Honestly the first time through the Crack DAT is hard. You just have to keep practicing. Make sure you watch the demo vidoes that explain the tips and tricks of the PAT section they give you some great advice as to how to quickly do the problems.

Tips: Angle ranking: I suck at this, it's probably my worst one, but the trick is to flick your eyes back and forth really really fast between the angles or to pretend that they angles are laptops being slightly closed or open. I try and separate which ones are above 90 and below 90 that can be a good starting point.

Hole Punch; A lot of people recommend watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ud0ZX0eEFA. He explains his method pretty well and it works too.

Cube Counting: The fastest way I've been able to do it is the method they recommended. Basically you number your paper like this 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
and make tally marks by each number as you swiftly count the cubes. Don't get caught up trying to count the sides of more than one cube, count each one and tally, then the next and tally. It leaves less room for error.

Top/Down-This section you need to figure out how the diagrams corresponding to each other. Which lines go with which, the demo video helps you correlate these.

Also, I would recommend playing a pixely 3D game such as Mario 64 or Tomb Raider or something. Something from the Playstation/N64 era. This in my opinion has greatly helped me visualize things 3 dimensional. The older games show more lines and I think it helps your brain learn to visualize the objects and assemble them in your head passively as opposed to you having to consciously think about each one. I think that it would help you automatically fill in gaps.

Keep practicing and try different methods and see if you can find your own, maybe your brain doesn't see it the same way that others do so other methods may work for you.

Good luck.

 

[free99]

Don't get caught up trying to count the sides of more than one cube, count each one and tally, then the next and tally. It leaves less room for error.

I found that when I tallied cubes one by one I sometimes lost where I was in the shape. For me, grouping blocks into manageable chunks of the whole and remembering short strings of numbers works very well. I can blast through this section and the hole punching section with good accuracy in ~12-13 minutes.

Just practice a method, hone it, then stick with it!

 

[pfg459]

Thank you for all the replies, they are all very helpful!

 

[pfg459]

I've been practicing every day with different programs, I just took crack dat test 2 and received an 18... But I STILL could not finish in time. It took me about an hour and 15min. to finish the test.

How do I improve on this? I am consistently scoring well on all other subjects except this one, and it just seems like if I can't get this right I'm in a bad situation.

 

[free99]

I've been practicing every day with different programs, I just took crack dat test 2 and received an 18... But I STILL could not finish in time. It took me about an hour and 15min. to finish the test.

How do I improve on this? I am consistently scoring well on all other subjects except this one, and it just seems like if I can't get this right I'm in a bad situation.

Look at your question breakdown in CDPAT and identify where you're spending the most time. Have you honed in on what methods work for you in each of the sub-tests? I would suggest taking as long as you need for the first few tests until you develop your skills, then start assigning yourself strict time limits once you're more comfortable with the variety of problems. Once you have a method you like, speed will come with practice. I used to have to count each of the sides of cubes, but now i can just look at the cubes and within a fraction of a second know how many sides are exposed without having to count them one by one.

 

[pfg459]

I am doing very well in hole punching, cube counting, and pattern folding (scoring 80-100% in those sections)

The Angle section was a 7/15... I've been practicing angles for quite a while - I'm not sure why it was so low. The keyhole and TFE questions were killing me. I spent the most time doing hole punches... It takes me a while to figure it out, but I usually ace that section. I just need to speed up for that subject.

 

[free99]

I have no advice for angles, they're my weakest sub-test as well. I bought an add on for cdpat for unlimited hole punches/angles/cube counting... I haven't used it a whole lot, but it came in handy when I was just starting out to build speed.

 

[pfg459]

It's ridiculous questions like this that get me...

How am I supposed to know that there is a cube here? I assumed that it was empty space...

(The cube in question is the one behind the stacked cubes, the answer is telling me that there is a cube in that "space")

(If moving from left to right in the columns there is a cube at column 6 row 2)

 

[free99]

Yeah that's absurd, there's no way to know. I think people have said on here that the real DAT doesn't do that to you.

 

[pfg459]

Great - I've been going back through my past 2 tests in CrackDAT and there have been two instances where this has happened... It is comforting to know that this probably won't happen on the real test.