hole puncing and cube counting on crack the dat

[smile101]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, I took 3 crack the dat pat tests so far.....and my weakest sections were hole punching and cube counting...i can't seem to get pass 9/15 on those.
I feel like they are harder than the real test...please correct me on that if I am wrong!!!

Also, I did good with keyhole and top-front-end view, and pattern folding with mostly 11-14/15 correct, whcih is okay...but I thought that the pattern folding on crack dat is much easier than the real test...is that right???

I don't have much to say about the angle ranking...it seems accurate with the original one.

 

[Orgodox]

With the cube counting there is a great trick...
you should make a small chart

. . 1 . . 2 . . 3 . . 4 . . 5
B
M
T _______________________
Total

(B= bottom M= middle T=top)

Then count each cube and put a l in the correct spot. When you finish its simple just fill in the answer for which every they ask. Usually at least 3 or 4 different cubes so it IS worth the time. Personally I dont do the BMT thing I just go straight and do total but if you like to double check and count them all and make sure you didn't miss one or count one twice then its easy to find where your mistake was and you dont have to start from the beginning. If your not going to double check anyhow then skip straight to total. This trick works great. After I learned this trick this section is BY FAR the easiest. Its straight forward.
Give it a shot!

 

[smile101]

With the cube counting there is a great trick...
you should make a small chart

. . 1 . . 2 . . 3 . . 4 . . 5
B
M
T _______________________
Total

(B= bottom M= middle T=top)

Then count each cube and put a l in the correct spot. When you finish its simple just fill in the answer for which every they ask. Usually at least 3 or 4 different cubes so it IS worth the time. Personally I dont do the BMT thing I just go straight and do total but if you like to double check and count them all and make sure you didn't miss one or count one twice then its easy to find where your mistake was and you dont have to start from the beginning. If your not going to double check anyhow then skip straight to total. This trick works great. After I learned this trick this section is BY FAR the easiest. Its straight forward.
Give it a shot!

Thanks..I do this all the time....but with crack dat,....i get optical illusions from the way they are positioned in space...kinda sad!!!

 

[flegg]

The hole punching on crack is definitely the hardest out of all the study aids I'm using, but I haven't taken the DAT yet to compare. Some differences I noticed though - the Kaplan book doesn't have any half-holes, while Topscore has them but only after the first unfolding, and crack has them everywhere.

By half holes I mean a hole on the fold line that turns into 1 full hole after unfolding. also less than half holes

For cube counting, the structures/form don't seem particularly more difficult, but they do seem to use, on average, more cubes than everybody else.

And unless I suck at both eying and measuring the damn things to make sure I was wrong, I think like 20-50% of the bonus angle problems found in the royal edition are wrong. Also the bonus cube counting has a few flawed structures.

 

[Orgodox]

Yea I definitly hear you. This is my strognest PAT section but sometimes on Crack Pat the figure is weird and it takes a while to see where the cubes are. The problem is some of the horizontal lines from a second level cube run straight into a bottom level cube thats in the background. This isnt always the case though most of them arent bad.

I hope its not this ambiguous on the real dat though even for one figure.

 

[Willem]

Its been hard to get any concrete answer on this. The PAT has half holes and 1/3 paper folds then?

 

[illbirz]

Thanks..I do this all the time....but with crack dat,....i get optical illusions from the way they are positioned in space...kinda sad!!!

HW Funny....I thought i was da only person in the world who that happens to. But am i glad im not alone. U know what they say about people with optical illusion skills....😛 ~i dont know either, but im sure its something good.~

 

[CookieDough]

Now I'm curious... are there half hole punches and such on the real PAT?

 

[smile101]

I don't recall any...but recently Kaplan has started mentioning them as well.

 

[hoss19]

some things i have noticed about crack the dat pat:

1. consistent with what others have noticed, there are many "optical illusions" on the cube sets. i assume that the real dat does not try to trick test takers with these illusions, but then again, who knows.

2. crack has its fair share of errors, particularly on pattern folding and cube counting. for pattern folding, i have found several quetions that offer multiple correct answers - i have even gone so far as the draw the patterns out on paper and fold them up to prove it to myself.

3. hole punching is brutal. my strategy is to do this section last. this may change on gameday for me if the real dat is not as difficult.

4. the resolution of the angles (in angle ranking) is mediocre at best. Is there anybody out there who has prepped using crack and has taken the actual dat that can compare the level of resolution between the two?

5. top-front-end is way too easy on crack the dat. kaplan / topscore / barrons are much much more difficult.

 

[FutureDent020]

I prepped using the Crack the PAT and angles were fairly equivalent to the ones on the real thing. Top front end and and key hole were harder on the real thing. Don't take longer than 10 min on each one of those sections. As for cube counting, crack the PAT goes a little overboard with the optical illusions. On the real DAT I think mine had one figure where it was tough to see if a cube was there or not, but there was nothing like the illusions on Crack the PAT. Folding is a little harder and hole punching is easier. They do give you problems with half punched holes though.

 

[dentist95757]

sorry for the double post

 

[dentist95757]

Cube counting was my weak point at first too, I just practiced and practiced.

I made a chart:
0 (sides painted)
1
2
3
4
5
and then tallied up the whole figure, counting

For hole punching, I had trouble until I found a strategy on SDN.

Draw a 4x4 grid by drawing 3 horizontal lines and 3 vertical lines, kinda like tic tac toe.

then you put the hole punches on that grid and use symmetry to work backwards. It helped to get me consistently 14s or 15s on hole punching.

There is a good explanation of this on this thread http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=541773 reply #21

hope that helps

 

[nze82]

So, I took 3 crack the dat pat tests so far.....and my weakest sections were hole punching and cube counting...i can't seem to get pass 9/15 on those.
I feel like they are harder than the real test...please correct me on that if I am wrong!!!
CDP has some optical illusions in case of cube counting. I've taken the DAT twice, and I never had any questions involving optical illusions.
About pattern folding, I'd say the level of difficulty is about the same.
About hole punching, again, I think the level of difficulty is about the same (The actual DAT maybe a bit easier).

Also, I did good with keyhole and top-front-end view, and pattern folding with mostly 11-14/15 correct, whcih is okay...but I thought that the pattern folding on crack dat is much easier than the real test...is that right???
IMO, they keyhole and TFE sections of CDP are easier than what I saw on the real test. What I saw on the real test for these two sections was more similar to TopScore questions. I was scoring 95-100% for these two sections, when I was doing CDP problems. But I'm sure I wasn't doing as well on the real test. So, just keep this in mind!

I don't have much to say about the angle ranking...it seems accurate with the original one.

I think there's a thread on this forum with some tips and tricks that may help you improve those scores. I suggest you search for it.