suggestions on using ek 101 verbal

[phizz]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hey guys,

I wanted to know how you're using the EK 101 verbal book to practice fore the CBT verbal...are you doing the tests in thier entirety...b/c the timing is different or do you split the tests up into individual passages?

Thanks

 

[Green Pirate]

I think I am going to divide the tests so that I have about 14 tests with 7 passages per test. This might result in a few more than 40 questions/test, but it will still be more accurate than the existing breakdown and it will force me to get more done in 60 minutes.

 

[vicinihil]

so when I'm going over these answers, what should I be looking at? How do I analyze my wrong answers and what do I look for when I read the description for my right answers. I feel like most of the answers just tell you why an answer is right, it doesn't do more than tell you why in this passage A is right but not B. How do you guys study for it?

 

[Green Pirate]

so when I'm going over these answers, what should I be looking at? How do I analyze my wrong answers and what do I look for when I read the description for my right answers. I feel like most of the answers just tell you why an answer is right, it doesn't do more than tell you why in this passage A is right but not B. How do you guys study for it?

yeah... EK even tells you that going over wrong answers isn't a huge help. So far I've been looking at what I missed, and why I missed it (i.e. was it a failure to grasp the main idea? did I misread the question? did I overlook a detail in the passage?). After I've analyzed where I went wrong, I know what area I need to focus on during my next test.

If you have time, I think reading magazine/journal articles can also be useful to pick up reading/processing speed, especially since there seems to be a dearth of good verbal practice materials around.

But as everyone has said on this board, I think the only way to ultimately improve is to keep practicing.

 

[midn]

I dunno, I feel like EK's tests ask you some really odd questions that force you to make some really vague assumptions. I think this is a really bad thing to teach because AAMC exams seems to offer plausible answers that are only tangentially related to the material and are usually incorrect answers while EK seems to treat these types of answers as correct answers.

Also, EK's passages are way too easy to read. There are definitely more abstract passages on the AAMC tests. I would suggest using another testing material than EK to get practice on harder passages. EK seems to like providing difficult answers to work with rather than asking difficult questions or giving difficult passages.

What do you guys think?

 

[vicinihil]

so funny thing is...when I was taking the REAL TEST

I thought hey this passage doesnt seem too bad I kinda understand...get to the questions AHHHHH crap!

Then when I get to a passage thats hard to read...like philosophy hard....then I get to the questions, they are damn easy if you grasped the passage. I feel like thats the general trend! SUPER HARD PASSAGE easy questions or SUPER EASY PASSAGE and just damn hard questions. So either way its lose lose. I'd use everything you can practice with, TPR, Kaplan, AAMC, EK and just do it all!