Topics that cannot be examined

[PL198]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I see people talk about this concept a decent amount but don't really understand how people come to the determination. Basically I guess it's when a concept doesn't have enough defining factors to where a question could be made about it and there would be other similar answer choices that would be reasonably close? Can anyone explain how they filter out stuff under this rationale?

 

[el_duderino]

As far as I can tell, as a first year, Step 1 isn't designed to be a totally thorough examination of knowledge. It's comprehensive, but the entire idea of it is to evaluate how well you, relative to your peers, understand and remember basic science and clinical knowledge. NBD if some topics can't be thoroughly examined in the format.

 

[PL198]

As far as I can tell, as a first year, Step 1 isn't designed to be a totally thorough examination of knowledge. It's comprehensive, but the entire idea of it is to evaluate how well you, relative to your peers, understand and remember basic science and clinical knowledge. NBD if some topics can't be thoroughly examined in the format.

It would still be helpful to prevent people from studying things that are unlikely to come up. However my inquiry is more based on curiosity.

 

[seminoma]

I see people talk about this concept a decent amount but don't really understand how people come to the determination. Basically I guess it's when a concept doesn't have enough defining factors to where a question could be made about it and there would be other similar answer choices that would be reasonably close? Can anyone explain how they filter out stuff under this rationale?

Everything can be tested. There are more than enough "high yield" topics to learn and there's no point in trying to figure out what is "not testable".