I'm having some serious issues with EK. Some of the explanations, in my mind, are just WAY too strange/nonsensical/ambiguous that I have a hard time taking them seriously. For example, there were definitely a lot of crazy ones from the Typhoid Mary passage in Lecture 1.
What do you guys think? Should I devote a lot of time to working on these super ambiguous questions, or will the real MCAT not be quite as tricky? From what I've seen in the AAMC tests, the questions are far more straightforward, but if my EK performances are an indication, I'm going to really suck on the actual test.
Also, some of their questions seem to just require far too much extrapolation. And the logic used in the extrapolation is inconsistent--one question may focus in on one tiny detail to justify an answer, while another may completely ignore it.
Here's one example, take a look at the immigration passage (Lecture 2 passage 2):
Question 34, the answer explanation justifies the correct answer because of the semantics of the question. Fair enough. Yet, the next question asks for a comparison of the US and New Zealand, but then cites a fact unrelated to the United States as the correct answer. The passage does not appear to make any comparison of the US and New Zealand's immigration laws. The new laws that allow faster deportation apply to New Zealand, but there is no discussion in the passage of deportation laws in the United States that might justify the comparison.
It just seems inconsistent, and my scores are accordingly inconsistent. I've gotten 13 and 14 on AAMC 3 and 4, respectively. I've never gotten above 10 on EK...
What do you guys think? Should I devote a lot of time to working on these super ambiguous questions, or will the real MCAT not be quite as tricky? From what I've seen in the AAMC tests, the questions are far more straightforward, but if my EK performances are an indication, I'm going to really suck on the actual test.
Also, some of their questions seem to just require far too much extrapolation. And the logic used in the extrapolation is inconsistent--one question may focus in on one tiny detail to justify an answer, while another may completely ignore it.
Here's one example, take a look at the immigration passage (Lecture 2 passage 2):
Question 34, the answer explanation justifies the correct answer because of the semantics of the question. Fair enough. Yet, the next question asks for a comparison of the US and New Zealand, but then cites a fact unrelated to the United States as the correct answer. The passage does not appear to make any comparison of the US and New Zealand's immigration laws. The new laws that allow faster deportation apply to New Zealand, but there is no discussion in the passage of deportation laws in the United States that might justify the comparison.
It just seems inconsistent, and my scores are accordingly inconsistent. I've gotten 13 and 14 on AAMC 3 and 4, respectively. I've never gotten above 10 on EK...
Last edited:
