serious doubts about EK verbal 101

[echoyjeff222]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I just did the first passage of EK 101. It is the WEIRDEST passage I have ever done (I have just been doing TPR so far) ... does it get better or ...? Some of these questions are just wacko and definitely something I would never expect to see on the MCAT ...

 

[Sed8&Intub8]

The first three diagnostic passages suck. Then they get better. But apparently tests 12-14 are really bad too, but I haven't gotten there yet

 

[Gauss44]

I just did the first passage of EK 101. It is the WEIRDEST passage I have ever done (I have just been doing TPR so far) ... does it get better or ...? Some of these questions are just wacko and definitely something I would never expect to see on the MCAT ...

EK is unlike AAMC in the way that AAMC almost always has 3 clearly wrong answers.

EK 101 includes at least several questions where the test maker seemed to overlook something major, resulting there being an answer choice that is "better" or more correct than the one they gave credit to. This information is by consensus from my study group and several tutors.

AAMC questions also require you to interpret things. EK asks for verbatim details from the passage. And EK's answer key usually stinks. EK sometimes has meaningless time-wasting answer keys that go something like: "WRONG. D is not the correct answer. A is clearly correct. B and C are not as plausible as A."

I personally like TPR the best for verbal, followed by maybe Gold Standard (although GS is not as literal as AAMC, GS uses words' definitions more liberally, and has a few funky questions I've already posted about). It seems like Kaplan's verbal reasoning wasn't too bad either.

 

[sharkbyte]

AMC questions also require you to interpret things. EK asks for verbatim details from the passage. And EK's answer key usually stinks. EK sometimes has meaningless time-wasting answer keys that go something like: "WRONG. D is not the correct answer. A is clearly correct. B and C are not as plausible as A."

Yeah EK's answer explanations are miserable.... they won't even clearly explain why the right answer is right, they'll say something along the lines of "This supports the assertion" and just leave it there. I think their answer explanations for the wrong ones are even worse because they won't explicitly state why they're wrong in context of the passage, they'll just say "This isn't supported" or "This makes little sense" but you're left hanging because you want to know WHY it doesn't make sense. TPR is much better with its answer explanations. It's not a coincidence that TPR Verbal is almost unanimously loved while most people just end up getting fed up with EK.

I know this isn't a big deal but I really don't why this Jonathan Orsay guy who's written most of EK's other books got a 15 on Verbal and had his brother write the book instead.

 

[thatfeelwhen79]

try ek test 5, it's more logical than all the other tests. almost like a different person wrote the questions/answers... (and it's also easier)

TPR is good but it is harder than real mcat

 

[echoyjeff222]

alright, i'll try test 5 ... i tried one from test 1 and it was horrible as well. the questions were just ... ugh ... compared to the TPR.