Does anybody find EK 101 much harder and much more "detail" oriented than the actual aamc full lengths or even the actual MCAT (for those of you who have taken it)?
In their first book, they go on and on about how the AAMC tests your comprehension of the passage, the author's main idea, tone, point of view, opinions, etc. They also advise against going back to the passage in order to search for answers.
Well I read all of their advise, and I agree with it, but then when i got to the EK 101 passages, I find that they themselves are hypocritical in that a very large majority of the questions that they asked are detail recollection questions, requiring you to go back to search for the context and to answer the question.
Since then I have switched to TPRH Verbal and I'm averaging around 82% on the passages. I do 3 passages per day, allotting myself 27 minutes to complete all 3 passages. I find that the TPRH verbal workbook is much more similar to the AAMC VR section than EK 101. The questions are much more "MCAT-like" and also the passages are much more MCAT-like in length and content.
I got a 7 on the VR section of the first aamc that I took, which was AAMC #10 (kind of a bad choice since this is supposedly one of the closest practice tests to the real deal). I took aamc #3 yesterday (supposedly one of the easiest ones), and I got a 10. Pretty big jump, not letting it get to my head. Just hope I can keep improving.
Does anybody else share my views regarding TPRH vs. EK 101 and which is more similar to the AAMC?