Verbal Question Stem?

[Descarteo]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ive been practicing with the EK verbal 101 and i have a few questions...what questions need to be answered without thoroughly implying something else that you would consider out of scope (which could eventually be the answer). In other words, when I review the questions, some chosen answers appear really out of scope to me, as in, I would need to really imply and assume a lot of things to arrive at those answers.

There are other times, I do think through the answer choices, and based on several assumptions come up with what I belive the correct answer is, only to find that those assumptions were not needed and render my answer out-of-scope.

This got me wondering how these questions were actually set up. Did they consider that some "answers" chosen to be correct may not be the same as what the real authors had in mind when writing those essays or articles? as a result, students, sometimes, need to find out what the EXAMINERS think the right answers are.

I also think this renders some questions or answers subjective. Nonetheless, I would keep practicing till I find out how, and what these guys think when they ask these questions.

That was by the way. So, does anyone know how to distinguish questions that require thorough re-reading and reflection of the passage, from those that require, often verbatim, statements from the passage?

Thanks in advance.

 

[beckhunter116]

Based on EK rules, very seldomly should you re-read the passage. Based on practice I tend to believe them, really there isn't enough time to re-read becuase even when they give you the line, you need to go back and read a few lines before and after.

Have you tried making the assumptions about the author (are they for, against, neutral, liberal, or conservative ect.) and devising a main point from the passage.

 

[0Complications]

Ive been practicing with the EK verbal 101 and i have a few questions...what questions need to be answered without thoroughly implying something else that you would consider out of scope (which could eventually be the answer). In other words, when I review the questions, some chosen answers appear really out of scope to me, as in, I would need to really imply and assume a lot of things to arrive at those answers.

There are other times, I do think through the answer choices, and based on several assumptions come up with what I belive the correct answer is, only to find that those assumptions were not needed and render my answer out-of-scope.

This got me wondering how these questions were actually set up. Did they consider that some "answers" chosen to be correct may not be the same as what the real authors had in mind when writing those essays or articles? as a result, students, sometimes, need to find out what the EXAMINERS think the right answers are.

I also think this renders some questions or answers subjective. Nonetheless, I would keep practicing till I find out how, and what these guys think when they ask these questions.

That was by the way. So, does anyone know how to distinguish questions that require thorough re-reading and reflection of the passage, from those that require, often verbatim, statements from the passage?

Thanks in advance.

I would be very wary of this. Don't try to overthink it. I would always go with what the passage implied, not what you think the authors of the test thought the author implied. You don't have time to think through all those variables on every question, plus this will lead to inconsistencies in your reasoning and line of thinking. Stick to the passage and main idea.

Based on EK rules, very seldomly should you re-read the passage. Based on practice I tend to believe them, really there isn't enough time to re-read becuase even when they give you the line, you need to go back and read a few lines before and after.

Have you tried making the assumptions about the author (are they for, against, neutral, liberal, or conservative ect.) and devising a main point from the passage.

I agree with this. My verbal scores started to increase immensely when I finally stopped going back to the passage. It wasn't overnight, but it saw the transition. I think beckhunter has a nice suggestion. Keep the main idea and the tone of the passage in mind when addressing those refer to the passage questions. More often than not you will find that you know the right answer without going back. Or at least narrowed it down to two. If the latter is your case, figure out how to eliminate the other answer and your set. After a while you'll just start to visualize the right answer. Now if I miss any questions, they are usually narrowed down to two and I miss some line of reasoning or assumption. You just need to practice this skill, learn where and how you went astray and correct the issue. Then practice it again.

I'm a big advocate of practice 5-6 days a week, with a couple practice passages a day. It's quick, easy and you can improve daily without burning all the good material in a fortnight.

 

[JasoniusUW]

Wow articulate post. I asked the exact same thing but I don't think I was able to articulate it hahah. That was mostly from the EK book though, from the AAMC I haven't encountered many of those discrepancies. I got a 9 today in verbal, good sign of improvement from a 6 on previous AAMCs. I attribute most of this from reading every word of the passage and really soaking in the tone and main point. You get an instinct of what's right and wrong.

I still havent' mastered that EK question stem strategy. I fail passages using that. This pertains to the EK strategy where you answer questions without reading. I'm honestly convinced that the main point and tone is the only and ultimate tool to doing well in verbal....3 point jump in 1 test. Prior to this I was going back to the passage to hunt answers down...