Hi everyone. I'm started to get REALLY frustrated at studying for the verbal reasoning section. Everybody seems to say that you should just focus on the authors main thesis and his opinion, and that you'll be able to get 90% of them correct.
I havn't been able to reach that level yet though. it seems like a huge number of the questions are based on a few words, hidden in the middle of massive paragraphs, that serve as a caveat to the main point. Without that, you're suddenly screwed out of points.
On top of that, i feel like they often use faulty logic on the answers, and it's INCREDIBLY frustrating to take a 90 minute test, come back, and saw you missed questions because of some bull****. /rant.
Page 24, question 7.
According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true about the relationship between the foliose lichens and the pepper moths?
a. Typicals are more difficult for bird to see on unpolluted lichens.
b. Moths and lichens tend to thrive in the more polluted areas.
c. Lichens in polluted forested concealment for melanics.
d. Their relationship is based upon Kettlewell's suppositions.
Now, all of these are (to me) pretty obviously incorrect. Exam Krackers contends that D. is true. The reasoning is that " This answer correctly implies that there is no relationship between the moths and the lichens...."
That's not what this answer implies at all! A supposition is essentially somebodies "suppose-ings". Which I would take to be similar to a hypothesis. Kettlewells hypothesis was that dark(polluted) lichens concealed melanistics, and light lichens concealed typicals. This is the opposite of the first sentence answered above!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 28. I just have a problem here because the passage uses caring and humility interchangeably, while compassion is another major trait (not apparently associated with caring.)
Page 29, question 26,
According to teh passage descriptions, which of the following "main qualities" (line 32) would be the most difficult to convey in a short first impression?
a. Trustworthiness
B. Competence
C. Compassion
D. Humility.
A. is the correct answer. D. was my answer. The answer sheet says
A: "This would be the most difficult to convey in a short first impression. "Trustworthiness consists of both honesty and reliability (most visibly demonstrated by keeping promises)" (lines 35-37). But, it would be very difficult to keep a promise, or demonstrate reliability, in a "short first impression. Granted, one could use "direct eye contact (which is invariably perceived as more honest)" (lines 61-62), but honesty is only one small aspect of trustworthiness.
D: "This would NOT be the most difficult to convey in a short first impression. We can discern that this is the opposite of "blatant self-promotion" (line 50) and deduce that to remain respectfully attentive, quieter and interested in others might serve to convey our humility."
I think this is complete rubbish. Trustworthiness, competence, and compassion all have EXAMPLES in the PASSAGE of things you could do to make yourself appear to have those traits. This does not exist for humility. Humility is based on the idea that you don't boast. In a "short first impression" people don't know that you have anything to boast about. I feel that this is extremely hard to show in a short first impression. Showing interest does NOT equal humility.
Trustworthiness is easy to show, however, and has examples in the passage. (eye contact, for example.) The passage states that trustworthiness is made up of Honesty and reliability. You do not have the opportunity to show reliabliity at this point, but you can show honesty. This is more than you can show for "humility".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 33. Question 38.
According to the passage, a scene from a horror movie, showing two lovers embracing, unaware of the huge monster closing in on them, would be filmed using:
b.a 'high-angle' 'long shot' with a normal lens
c. a 'low-angle' 'long shot' with a normal lens.
I chose c. answer is b.
Here's the difference, the passage defines a high-angle as "... suggests... that the character is in trouble." and defines a low-angel as "... suggests the object to be... intimidating."
The only reason stated that C is wrong is simply because it never states the monster is in the shot. I feel that, while correct, it's absurd to think that a medical school is going to be basing its entry on questions that care about that minute of an insignificant detail. It also assumes knowledge i don't have (that they dont want the monster in my scene.) Is this reflective of ACTUAL mcat vr sections??!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case a need to offer additional examples, question 50.
--------------------------------------------
These are just a few examples of some of the (what i consider to be) faulty logic used by exam krackers to train people on how to prepare for the MCATS. There are many more examples. Am i looking at and understanding these problems incorrectly, or is it really as absurd as it seems?
I havn't been able to reach that level yet though. it seems like a huge number of the questions are based on a few words, hidden in the middle of massive paragraphs, that serve as a caveat to the main point. Without that, you're suddenly screwed out of points.
On top of that, i feel like they often use faulty logic on the answers, and it's INCREDIBLY frustrating to take a 90 minute test, come back, and saw you missed questions because of some bull****. /rant.
Page 24, question 7.
According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true about the relationship between the foliose lichens and the pepper moths?
a. Typicals are more difficult for bird to see on unpolluted lichens.
b. Moths and lichens tend to thrive in the more polluted areas.
c. Lichens in polluted forested concealment for melanics.
d. Their relationship is based upon Kettlewell's suppositions.
Now, all of these are (to me) pretty obviously incorrect. Exam Krackers contends that D. is true. The reasoning is that " This answer correctly implies that there is no relationship between the moths and the lichens...."
That's not what this answer implies at all! A supposition is essentially somebodies "suppose-ings". Which I would take to be similar to a hypothesis. Kettlewells hypothesis was that dark(polluted) lichens concealed melanistics, and light lichens concealed typicals. This is the opposite of the first sentence answered above!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 28. I just have a problem here because the passage uses caring and humility interchangeably, while compassion is another major trait (not apparently associated with caring.)
Page 29, question 26,
According to teh passage descriptions, which of the following "main qualities" (line 32) would be the most difficult to convey in a short first impression?
a. Trustworthiness
B. Competence
C. Compassion
D. Humility.
A. is the correct answer. D. was my answer. The answer sheet says
A: "This would be the most difficult to convey in a short first impression. "Trustworthiness consists of both honesty and reliability (most visibly demonstrated by keeping promises)" (lines 35-37). But, it would be very difficult to keep a promise, or demonstrate reliability, in a "short first impression. Granted, one could use "direct eye contact (which is invariably perceived as more honest)" (lines 61-62), but honesty is only one small aspect of trustworthiness.
D: "This would NOT be the most difficult to convey in a short first impression. We can discern that this is the opposite of "blatant self-promotion" (line 50) and deduce that to remain respectfully attentive, quieter and interested in others might serve to convey our humility."
I think this is complete rubbish. Trustworthiness, competence, and compassion all have EXAMPLES in the PASSAGE of things you could do to make yourself appear to have those traits. This does not exist for humility. Humility is based on the idea that you don't boast. In a "short first impression" people don't know that you have anything to boast about. I feel that this is extremely hard to show in a short first impression. Showing interest does NOT equal humility.
Trustworthiness is easy to show, however, and has examples in the passage. (eye contact, for example.) The passage states that trustworthiness is made up of Honesty and reliability. You do not have the opportunity to show reliabliity at this point, but you can show honesty. This is more than you can show for "humility".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 33. Question 38.
According to the passage, a scene from a horror movie, showing two lovers embracing, unaware of the huge monster closing in on them, would be filmed using:
b.a 'high-angle' 'long shot' with a normal lens
c. a 'low-angle' 'long shot' with a normal lens.
I chose c. answer is b.
Here's the difference, the passage defines a high-angle as "... suggests... that the character is in trouble." and defines a low-angel as "... suggests the object to be... intimidating."
The only reason stated that C is wrong is simply because it never states the monster is in the shot. I feel that, while correct, it's absurd to think that a medical school is going to be basing its entry on questions that care about that minute of an insignificant detail. It also assumes knowledge i don't have (that they dont want the monster in my scene.) Is this reflective of ACTUAL mcat vr sections??!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case a need to offer additional examples, question 50.
--------------------------------------------
These are just a few examples of some of the (what i consider to be) faulty logic used by exam krackers to train people on how to prepare for the MCATS. There are many more examples. Am i looking at and understanding these problems incorrectly, or is it really as absurd as it seems?
