Would it be a good rule of thumb to assume that there are no cubes where you can't see them (ie. behind other cubes)? I've been doing CDP and gotten problems wrong because some of the diagrams are drawn in a way where you can't see everything; will the real DAT be like this?

You should only assume that a hidden cube is present if it is necessary to support a cube on top of it. If, for example, you see a cube three rows high, you must assume that there are two cubes under it, even if they are hidden.

Would it be a good rule of thumb to assume that there are no cubes where you can't see them (ie. behind other cubes)? I've been doing CDP and gotten problems wrong because some of the diagrams are drawn in a way where you can't see everything; will the real DAT be like this?

I had the same problem with CDP and I searched some of the posts regarding it, CDP has weird cube patterns that are illusions and its basically a mind****.... from what people said, real DAT cube counting is more straight forward without the illusions.

The illusions are different from hidden cubes though if thats what you're asking... hidden cubes are fair game, if a stack of cubes is like 4X4, there are gonna be cubes you can't see and you have to account for them.... but as far as those trippy illusion cube counting problems, doesn't seem like people said that they were on the real test.

You should only assume that a hidden cube is present if it is necessary to support a cube on top of it. If, for example, you see a cube three rows high, you must assume that there are two cubes under it, even if they are hidden.

yep, all the advice given here is true. use your own logic if you see a figure and know it must be supported by other cubes. also, the cube counting on CDP is MUCH harder than the actual exam. the real cube counting will be straightforward

Also ... on Crack I noticed that each question is related to its own figure where as on the DAT a single figure is used for multiple questions ... this helps with quickly moving through the questions once youve counted cubes of each type and I found the kaplan method helpful.

Im not sure exactly what the kaplan method is but i think its making a tally sheet for each diagram. If so that is what i find the best way.

To recap:
for each diagram make a vertical list 1-5 then start at one side and systematically work your way to the last cube. I start at the highest cube (bc it is almost alwasy 5 sided and is a quick way to get moving) then work down. when i come to a lvl where there are multiple cubes i start on the back right and do each row at a time to make sure i dont miss any cubes. I am sure there are other methods that work too but this way makes sure you dont overlook a hidden cube

on crack test 2, the cube counting is messed up on one. I can't even figuere out what the heck is going on. I think its the fourth figure. anyone know what I'm talkimg about.

on crack test 2, the cube counting is messed up on one. I can't even figuere out what the heck is going on. I think its the fourth figure. anyone know what I'm talkimg about.