The key to a 15 in VR – understanding question and answer design.

[Neuroguy887]

---

Members do not see this ad.

This topic is for those who feel they have very strong reading comprehension and logic skills, and also those interested in the theory of standardized tests and the MCAT.

I've thought a lot about the VR section and have come to some conclusions that I would like to start a discussion about…

First off, I believe that some questions in the VR sections intentionally offer multiple correctly justifiable answer choices.

I think the root of this is in the nature of students' verbal reasoning ability – this ability curve is Bimodal. The first, larger, mode is composed of students who have not mastered logic, reading comprehension, language use, etc. The issue arises from the existence of a sizable second mode – the many of us who have grown up reading forums and articles online for hours a day, in addition to having natural comprehension ability, and feel we have completely developed these skills.

Unlike the knowledge tested in PS and BS, I believe the skills tested by VR (mainly comprehension and logic) have a finite possibility for mastery.
Once mastered, these skills should display consistency in every passage that one reads. Those of us in the second mode are simply easily able to comprehend any passage and understand the authors point; you know if this is you.

This mode of test takers SHOULD score 100% on every MCAT verbal reasoning test they take. However, obviously AAMC cannot have an entire mode of test-takers scoring the 14's and 15's that are supposed to be reserved for the top .001%; their scores would not be correctly standardized.

Thus, they have to include some questions with multiple justifiable answer choices and alter their lines of reasoning in the explanations. This effectively makes the difference between a 13, 14, and 15 a game of chance. I'm sure that many of you in both modes have thought the following as you read an AAMC explanation for a question you got "wrong." The line of reasoning they use to justify the correct answer here is different than in another question. For example, one question may have a possible answer choice that is explained as incorrect because it requires inference and is not explicitly stated in the passage. However, another question will undoubtedly have a correct answer choice that is explained as correct through use of inferences.

Don't get me wrong, the majority of questions DO have a clear-cut answer that is achievable through comprehension and logic skills; these are intended to separate test takers of the first mode. However, there must also be several "distribution achieving" questions (I will call them DA questions) in a section to smooth out the distribution of scores for the second mode of students.

With this understanding, I believe there is a way for those of us in the second mode to maximize our chances of getting every question correct.

First of all, we need to be able to identify DA questions. This is not too difficult; the majority of them are placed in the "hard" humanities/philosophy passage(s). This allows for AAMC to justify the VR section as dividing students based on increasingly difficult passage content (the premise being that only .0001% of students have the comprehension ability to correctly answer all questions from these passages). However, many of us have read these passages and completely understood them, it was the questions that caused a non-perfect score. If you have strong comprehension and logic ability, you will be able to identify DA questions as those questions in "Hard" passages that you feel have two possible justifiable answers.

To develop an algorithm for DA questions, we need to match DA question types to corresponding lines of reasoning that are used to design correct and incorrect answer choices. Keep in mind that usually there will only be 2 DA answer choices that are both justifiable, so the first step is to eliminate the clearly incorrect answer choices. Now, if the AAMC had it's way, we would at this point basically be forced to guess at which form of justification they would be using to determine the correct answer. However, by matching question types to justifications we may be able to circumvent this.

For example, DA questions asking "What would the author think about…." or "what would the person in the passage do if" seem to have a somewhat consistent distribution of type of justification for the "correct" answer. If there are two justifiable choices, The right answer here is usually the more intuitive or general choice, as opposed to one that relies on inferences from the passage.

On the other hand, DA questions that ask for application of a theme to a novel concept seem to have "trick" answers. These are justifiable through inference but the answer that is graded as correct here is the choice that is strictly based on words in the passage.

This thing about DA questions is just a small step in the right direction of understanding the design of VR questions and answers. This understanding is key to consistently getting every question correct for those of us with strong comprehension ability. It would most help if we could find the exact criteria question designers use to develop correct and incorrect answer choices. Let me know what you guys think and any connections you can draw about question types.

 

[Gnomes]

I'm not sure I agree with the proposed rationale, but I also got the distinct impression that there are a lot of verbal questions with two answers for which one could make an equally strong argument, and they tend to be clustered around the most subjective sorts of questions ("what would he think about this," etc.)

And yes, it's annoying how VR is so luck-based; once you've got to 13-ish you're just rolling the dice each time afterward. (True to some extent for all sections, but the curve is tightest and the questions the most capricious on VR.)

 

[music2doc]

Have you taken the AAMC's VR? The AAMC VR tends to be better written than the test prep companies' and, therefore, gives more consistent reasoning for their answers. While I could, perhaps, see your point in terms of EK, I can't really agree with this in terms of the AAMC 7-11 or the real MCAT.

 

[tman5890]

Say what? 😕

 

[Research3r]

An interesting concept that I believe should be looked at further. I can agree that in the non-aamc practise tests there is certainly inconsistencies for the rational as you have mentioned. Although we cannot post actual aamc content on this forum, have you confirmed your theory with the aamc practise tests? Again, in replying to this please do not post the examples from the aamc materials but instead enlighten us as to whether your theory is consistent.

 

[salim271]

Something to keep in mind, if anything, i guess. It really kills me that even at my best I'm probably only going to average 11-12 on VR because of questions with more than one 'correct' answer.

 

[Neuroguy887]

An interesting concept that I believe should be looked at further. I can agree that in the non-aamc practise tests there is certainly inconsistencies for the rational as you have mentioned. Although we cannot post actual aamc content on this forum, have you confirmed your theory with the aamc practise tests? Again, in replying to this please do not post the examples from the aamc materials but instead enlighten us as to whether your theory is consistent.

Yeah I began thinking of it while looking through the the AAMC explanations.I agree that, if you have good comprehension skills, non-AAMC VR sections and practice is pointless; the key is trying to decipher the way that AAMC designs questions and answer choices. I havn't done the later ones yet though so hopefully those might have less ambiguity and prove this theory off base.

 

[SnYpaJY]

I like your rationale. I've been thinking about this as well.

I think if you are in the second mode, a 12 or higher is definitely do-able. As long as you trust yourself and stick to the main idea/ general argument of the passage, you will most likely get a 12, 13, 14, or 15. This comes with technique, something you must build over time.

Since getting anything around a 12 or higher is due to chance (a difference of one question being correct or wrong), medical schools only look to see if you can achieve a 12. In their eyes, a 12 is just as good as a 15.

The hardest part for second mode students is getting the timing right AND learning the correct technique to answer the questions.

I find that I can reason out why the AAMC picked a certain answer choice to be correct for harder questions if I use the concept of main idea or specific detail. So in that sense, I think your reasoning behind how to answer DA questions is correct.

However, I do not think you should worry about finding DA questions. Instead, use the same approach to every problem. After reading a question, decide if you should use a global perspective or a local one to answer the question, AND STICK TO IT.

If you can do that, I assure you, you will get every answer choice correct.

Doing well on the verbal section has as much to do with technique as being in a certain mode. I would rather be a first mode student with a solid technique than a second mode student with no technique. But if you're a second mode student with a good technique, I can almost bet you'll get a 12 or higher.

The AAMC bases each and every question on either a global theme or a local one. They cannot go in between because someone could sue them if there are multiple answer choices that answer the question.

Second moders with no technique can easily narrow down questions to two answer choices since the other two are usually out of scope or localized in a different area of the passage. But second moders with a technique can narrow it down to one answer choice, every time.

 

[ATPase8]

this article read like a verbal passage, oh s*** i gotta go to the mcat @ now

 

[Neuroguy887]

I find that I can reason out why the AAMC picked a certain answer choice to be correct for harder questions if I use the concept of main idea or specific detail. So in that sense, I think your reasoning behind how to answer DA questions is correct.

However, I do not think you should worry about finding DA questions. Instead, use the same approach to every problem. After reading a question, decide if you should use a global perspective or a local one to answer the question, AND STICK TO IT.

If you can do that, I assure you, you will get every answer choice correct.

Doing well on the verbal section has as much to do with technique as being in a certain mode. I would rather be a first mode student with a solid technique than a second mode student with no technique. But if you're a second mode student with a good technique, I can almost bet you'll get a 12 or higher.

The AAMC bases each and every question on either a global theme or a local one. They cannot go in between because someone could sue them if there are multiple answer choices that answer the question.

Second moders with no technique can easily narrow down questions to two answer choices since the other two are usually out of scope or localized in a different area of the passage. But second moders with a technique can narrow it down to one answer choice, every time.

Great comments... though I think the difference between a 12 and a 15 is very significant - 3 entire points to your overall score. If that puts you from a 29 to a 32 it's pretty big. I agree with your other comments. Now I'd love if you could explain the technique you talked about. What do you look for in a question that makes you decide if you should use a global perspective or a local one.

 

[geodad]

For example, DA questions asking “What would the author think about….” or “what would the person in the passage do if” seem to have a somewhat consistent distribution of type of justification for the “correct” answer. If there are two justifiable choices, The right answer here is usually the more intuitive or general choice, as opposed to one that relies on inferences from the passage.

I could be mistaken, but it sounds to me like this would be the "global" perspective.

On the other hand, DA questions that ask for application of a theme to a novel concept seem to have “trick” answers. These are justifiable through inference but the answer that is graded as correct here is the choice that is strictly based on words in the passage.

And this one would be "local" since it depends more heavily on the words in the passage....

 

[Neuroguy887]

I could be mistaken, but it sounds to me like this would be the "global" perspective.



And this one would be "local" since it depends more heavily on the words in the passage....

Yeah but the key is to be able to figure out if they're going to want a global or local (I prefer inference vs. strict passage adherence) justification for an answer before you you're reading AAMC's solutions... One possible way (but not going to be 100% accurate) is to do it by analyzing AAMC solutions for every question "type." But SnYpaJY says he has some technique this already so I'd like to hear it

 

[SnYpaJY]

Deleted

 

[coyotelime]

I think the local and global type questions are by far the most difficult. I always get trapped between two answers on those then due to time constraints, pick the one I think is best(which seems to be right <50% of the time unfortunately) and move on.

The problem I have had with all the strategies(Kaplan/TPR) that suggest finding the question type/stem is its actual relevance to getting the correct answer.

I think most people understand what the question is asking, it's the answer choices that we struggle with. That being said, figuring out that a question is a detail question, main idea, or global/local inference may help us identify potential trick answers and eliminate those immediately, but as stated earlier, there may be two attractive answers left.

I wish we could figure this out and get 15s =)

 

[salim271]

I wish we could figure this out and get 15s =)

It would be great if we could crack the MCAT verbal in half this summer and all score 14/15 on VR... that would make the MCAT writers go insane XD. I hate those jerks!! 😛

 

[NickNaylor]

I think you've been thinking a little too much about this.

I will agree with you that most questions have two answers that, AT FIRST GLANCE, seem to be correct. However, distinguishing between these two is what sets apart the 15s from the 12s and 13s, and the skills required to do so are still fundamentally reading comprehension and logic skills. I don't think this ridiculous "algorithm" is necessary. Read the question carefully - I've found that understanding EXACTLY what the question asks is necessary and usually where most people screw up - and answer the question accordingly. The problems usually result when 1) people allow outside knowledge to bias their answer (and the test writers take advantage of this vulnerability frequently) and/or 2) people use specific pieces of the passage to try and answer a question asking about the general "feel" of the passage, which usually results in an inaccurate perception of the passage. Questions where the test taker has the opportunity to do these two things are usually the questions that are missed because the test taker will usually do those two things intuitively, sometimes without thinking.

It still ultimately comes down to reading comprehension. You just aren't asked these kinds of questions when reading forums, articles, etc., and thus may not be used to answering them.

 

[medhopefuls]

I agree with the above post. While what you say may be true of practice verbal from, for instance, EK or Princeton, it is definitely NOT true for aamc.

Remember, this is a ultimately a TEST. As a test, there has got to be only one right answer to EVERY single question otherwise there will be enormous number of people complaining about the test. The MCAT Verbal writers can only make the answers so vague as far as not to obscure the line between objectivity and subjectivity.

 

[beysam]

Say what? 😕

Same here.😕

 

[Hands4Surgery]

Hello all;

First I would like to mention that found a decent number of analogies in the AAMC practice tests, and this is something that I have not read anywhere on this forum, nor I have heard the prep companies mention this in their courses or books. (Ihave the TPR VR book, and have read Kaplan lightly.)

Analogies are very particular, and they alone represent a single type of question, among all others, and they are tough stuff to master. I took the GRE; the verbal from that test is mostly analogies, and they are really tough to master. Again, I have seen them in the practice AAMC's, as well as in the questions form EK 101 passages, and I just wanted to leave the word out that there are analogies in the MCAT.

if you have ever come across a question of type...
A graduate student and his master's thesis would most closely resemble:
a. a grandma and her best dish
b. an elefant and his circus tricks
c. a spyder and its spyder web
d. ford and the topic of fuel economy

...then you probably worked an analogy question.

Solution:
A grad student is an expert in his subject, and the thesis took a lot of work to complete in this area of experteese! in the example that I designed, I would think that a spider is an expert at making spyder webs, and it took a lot of work in this area of expertese to complete, thus C would be the one selected. Grandmas are experts at cooking, but not a single dish, so NO. a trick is only one of a buch that Mr elephant knows, and ford and fuel economy... lets not even go there.

Again, I've seen this stuff in practice tests, so when you see them, go back and find the reasoning behind this stuff and this may help improve scores.


Oh, before I go, I have found questions in practice AAMC that put those who did not grow up in the US at disadvantage. I found a question (I believe an analogy type) asking to compare two things and the correct answer was Helen Keller's performance, or book, or something by her, and her name was not mentioned in the passage anywhere. Analyzing this section with someone that grew up in the US, she immediately knew that answer was right because apparently everybody who grew up here knows who Hellen Keller was, or is. (I'll have to google because in the 10 years I've lived here I have never heard the name). I further mentioned this to her, and she replied that she had encountered a number of other American culture-based questions, and that she had indeed thought that these questions would give her advantage over people who did not grow up here in the US. Watch out for that, and for those of us who came to the US later in life.... good luck.


Best of luck to ALL!


H4S

 

[vandyam]

Hello all;

if you have ever come across a question of type...
A graduate student and his master's thesis would most closely resemble:
a. a grandma and her best dish
b. an elefant and his circus tricks
c. a spyder and its spyder web
d. ford and the topic of fuel economy

...then you probably worked an analogy question.

Solution:
A grad student is an expert in his subject, and the thesis took a lot of work to complete in this area of experteese! in the example that I designed, I would think that a spider is an expert at making spyder webs, and it took a lot of work in this area of expertese to complete, thus C would be the one selected. Grandmas are experts at cooking, but not a single dish, so NO. a trick is only one of a buch that Mr elephant knows, and ford and fuel economy... lets not even go there.

H4S

I'm sorry, but I think this is a terrible example (and not because of the intense amount of typos). A graduate student also knows more than the work/subject they present in their thesis. A thesis is just one project (sure, the main one) that a graduate students complete throughout the course of their studies (undergraduate and beyond). Not that it matters, because this question was completely fabricated by your mind, but an elephant and his circus tricks would qualify for a correct answer. The elephant does other stuff in life, but his main work is to be there all day long working hard at preforming his "circus tricks." An elephant has to work at it (be trained) to be able to preform circus tricks (much like a student). Contrastingly, a spider is basically born being able to make spider webs; it is not a developed skill after years of learning/practice. Therefore, the spider answer choice is actually incorrect.

I have no idea why I bothered to respond to a make-believe question, but I guess I'm bored at work/didn't want someone else to read this and become confused/discouraged because they realized (despite already struggling in VR...hence why they are seeking advice on this thread) they don't understand "analogy" type questions, either.

 

[Flamen04]

I'm sorry, but I think this is a terrible example (and not because of the intense amount of typos). A graduate student also knows more than the work/subject they present in their thesis. A thesis is just one project (sure, the main one) that a graduate students complete throughout the course of their studies (undergraduate and beyond). Not that it matters, because this question was completely fabricated by your mind, but an elephant and his circus tricks would qualify for a correct answer. The elephant does other stuff in life, but his main work is to be there all day long working hard at preforming his "circus tricks." An elephant has to work at it (be trained) to be able to preform circus tricks (much like a student). Contrastingly, a spider is basically born being able to make spider webs; it is not a developed skill after years of learning/practice. Therefore, the spider answer choice is actually incorrect.

I have no idea why I bothered to respond to a make-believe question, but I guess I'm bored at work/didn't want someone else to read this and become confused/discouraged because they realized (despite already struggling in VR...hence why they are seeking advice on this thread) they don't understand "analogy" type questions, either.

And this is why people get questions wrong in VR... Your logic is also faulty. A graduate student has an "innate" mastery of his thesis. An elephant, however, does not. It would not be able to perform its circus tricks without an outside cue (presence of trainers). On the other hand, a spider would be able to spin its web naturally. It doesn't have to be taught or commanded to make a web. It just does when the time is right. So his original answer is correct.

 

[vandyam]

And this is why people get questions wrong in VR... Your logic is also faulty. A graduate student has an "innate" mastery of his thesis. An elephant, however, does not. It would not be able to perform its circus tricks without an outside cue (presence of trainers). On the other hand, a spider would be able to spin its web naturally. It doesn't have to be taught or commanded to make a web. It just does when the time is right. So his original answer is correct.

I'm sorry but I compeltely disagree with you. A graduate student does not have an innate master of his thesis; that is ridiculous. Were you born with a knowledge/mastery of "Habitat used by the West Indian manatee in Alabama Waters" or "Impacts of schooling mesopredators on benthic communities?" Hell no you weren't. A graduate student studies their ass off to master a subject - there is nothing innate about it. They've spent 4 years of undergrad working and then even as a graduate student they have senior professors above them teaching them/helping them with their research. This is nothing like the true innate ability for birds to fly to different parts of the country during climate change or spiders spinning a web.Your logic is flawed.

 

[Flamen04]

I'm sorry but I compeltely disagree with you. A graduate student does not have an innate master of his thesis; that is ridiculous. Were you born with a knowledge/mastery of "Habitat used by the West Indian manatee in Alabama Waters" or "Impacts of schooling mesopredators on benthic communities?" Hell no you weren't. A graduate student studies their ass off to master a subject - there is nothing innate about it. They've spent 4 years of undergrad working and then even as a graduate student they have senior professors above them teaching them/helping them with their research. This is nothing like the true innate ability for birds to fly to different parts of the country during climate change or spiders spinning a web.Your logic is flawed.

I guess "innate" wasn't the word I was looking for.. I was just trying to say that even though a graduate student studies his ass off, he can recollect the information learned and apply it to a situation at will. The elephant circus can't. Your answer is still wrong.

 

[music2doc]

I'm sorry, but I think this is a terrible example (and not because of the intense amount of typos). A graduate student also knows more than the work/subject they present in their thesis. A thesis is just one project (sure, the main one) that a graduate students complete throughout the course of their studies (undergraduate and beyond). Not that it matters, because this question was completely fabricated by your mind, but an elephant and his circus tricks would qualify for a correct answer. The elephant does other stuff in life, but his main work is to be there all day long working hard at preforming his "circus tricks." An elephant has to work at it (be trained) to be able to preform circus tricks (much like a student). Contrastingly, a spider is basically born being able to make spider webs; it is not a developed skill after years of learning/practice. Therefore, the spider answer choice is actually incorrect.

I have no idea why I bothered to respond to a make-believe question, but I guess I'm bored at work/didn't want someone else to read this and become confused/discouraged because they realized (despite already struggling in VR...hence why they are seeking advice on this thread) they don't understand "analogy" type questions, either.

While I agree with you that this question is poorly written and even the reasons behind the answers aren't entirely correct, I do have to agree w/ the poster that "C" is the "most correct" answer. Unfortunately, the reasons are frequently not so easy to define properly. In all honesty, "C" simply stuck out to me and I tend to be very good at verbal. I'm not so sure all the gimmicks (like this thread) are really that useful. In fact, I think they may be quite detrimental. I'd suggest you simply practice. There is no magic bullet, no correct VR technique, etc. It simply takes practice. You need to read a lot and learn to think like the AAMC.

 

[Grom]

So you say "C" but you can't justify your answer, great. The analogy questions I've seen in VR are usually to be evaluated with regards to the passage, and considering neither the example nor the reason behind the "correct" answer were done well, the poster probably should have excluded it altogether.

 

[bambam02]

I like your explanations of the questsion types, but i do not necessarily agree with your rationale behind the bi-modal stereotyping behind VR test takers. Heres why:

If there were clearly 2 distinct modes of VR test takers, then they would display it in a bi-modal distribution curve, like they do for the writting section of the test. Instead, i think you are refering to how close in skill the top 4% of test takers are. There is no objective reason to assume a bi-modal population of test takers.

With that said, i think what separates the top 4% from the rest is spot on with your reasoning--> they simply read more than the rest of the population of test takers... but not soo much more as to separate them into a completely diff mode.

 

[BreezyWheeze]

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks something along these lines. I took the MCAT last summer and got a 13 on VR. On practice exams I've gotten a few 14's and bunch of 13's. I was a philosophy major as an undergrad, and I got a perfect 180 on the LSAT, which is *entirely* a test of verbal ability.

So I know my stuff.

And time after time, there are a handful of questions (not more than 2 or 3 mind you) where the AAMC rationale is somewhere between poor and wrong. When it's poor, I just grit my teeth and deal with it. But among the official AAMC practice tests, there are four or five questions where the "credited" answer is distinctly not the best choice. I don't say this as a whiny student who just doesn't "get it". I say this as a person with absolutely top-flight analytical skills who has worked as a professional writer and editor, and who can clearly demonstrate why the AAMC rationale is wrong, on multiple occasions.

So what do you do? I've just decided that once you hit 13, as has been said above, it's all luck. Do you hit boxcars in the crapshoot or not. I see no way to develop an "algorithm" to map the vagaries of the test-writer's mind.

 

[rockstarramona]

I know I should be studying for the MCAT instead of responding to threads like this, but I can't resist. One variable that was omitted in your description of VR test takers is time. An individual with mediocre reading comprehension skills may be a fast reader, giving them more time to agonize over the intentionally ambiguous questions, while another person may take longer to read but understand everything. This second person, strapped for time, will sometimes be forced to eliminate the two obvious wrong answers and throw their Hail Mary pass.

Time is a huge factor, and not all those with strong reading comprehension skills can apply them under timed conditions. I read a lot, and I do so very slowly. I like to understand every word, as well as the syntax of each sentence. It is difficult to train yourself out of reading this way in a few short months. If I had a few more minutes per passage most, if not all, of those questions with two "correct" answers would get a lot easier. I don't think the modes are so clearly defined. Play to your strengths and minimize your weaknesses so you can nestle into that sweet spot between the modes (I would be happy with an 12-13 on VR).

 

[music2doc]

So you say "C" but you can't justify your answer, great. The analogy questions I've seen in VR are usually to be evaluated with regards to the passage, and considering neither the example nor the reason behind the "correct" answer were done well, the poster probably should have excluded it altogether.

Grom, I did that intentionally. The reason being that often you cannot "justify" your answer verbally. It's just an instinct you develop. I suspect that's why so many VR books fail. The fact is that the answer is often not really in the passage or the question per say. It's more of a logical inference. In the example given, it's related to the use of prototypes. In essence, the question is asking, "Which of the following has the protypical relationship most similar to the example given?"

As for your criticism of a question w/o a passage, I agree. Analogy questions like the OP's (w/o the passage as well as in conjunction w/ a passage) are more akin to something seen on the GRE Verbal.

I think looking back at the question, what led me to say "C" was the fact that a grad student's thesis is such a critical part of his work. It is his handiwork over a long period and is basically the supporting infrastructure upon which he lives as a grad student (i.e., it is the masterwork that is the ultimate reason he is receiving funding that provides for food, shelter, etc.). These functions are similar to that of the spider's web. The other answers are not so vital to the individual's survival/success in the stated context nor are they natural masterwork tasks for that creature or position.

 

[Eric01]

To be honest I think the difference between a 13,14, and 15 is literally two questions.

They're probably equally skilled people at that point. Each can probably eliminate two wrong answers, leaving two nearly correct ones. Then it just comes down to chance.