aquarezia

I have posted this quiz, please try it out Sat Vocabulary . If you all like it then I will have more of them added. regards aqua

Percentile score can never exceed 100%, though it can move up and down as more people take test (its a statistical data afterall). Jive, the "quickscan top 10" chart on Scoresofsteelshows that 96% is by far the highest percentile on Quickscan. Sahil and Newclearbomb ranks 4th the 6th respectively - congrats.[clap] I am still to make it to the top-10 though...:(

Hi theBends1996, a general advice on how to improve quant score wont help you, because you have already reached 700. You need a specific plan to enter the next band. To get to that specific plan, you have to analyze the following: 1. areas where you did not perform well or took too much of time and 2. areas where you performed well or took less time Once you have that, we can give you some pin pointed advise. hth

97 percentile is a great score, your vocab must be really really good :hmm:

Problems with standard flashcard is that its pretty general and has not being tailored to individual needs. Other big problem is that we do not get an idea of where we stand or at what pace are we improving once we start using these flashcards I used QuickScan www.scoresofsteel.org which in 10mins of test gives: 1. a customized deck of flashcard and 2. assessment report highlighting my percentile score. I got 84 percentile, why dont you guys try and lets see how we all are doing relative to each other ! :tup:

Problems with standard flashcard is that its pretty general and has not being tailored to individual needs. Other big problem is that we do not get an idea of where we stand or at what pace are we improving once we start using these flashcards I used QuickScan www.scoresofsteel.org which in 10mins of test gives: 1. a customized deck of flashcard and 2. assessment report highlighting my percentile score. I got 84 percentile, why dont you guys try and lets see how we all are doing relative to each other ! :tup:

for vocab you may want to try out this new stuff : http://scoresofsteel.com//bin/words.py

recalled my posting...

Category of question : Comparsion B,C eliminated because the "world" is being compared to "handheld computer" - it might be true in a certain poetic sense but GMATland would not entertain this :) A, E are "the length of which is that of a" is a mile long sentence version for the phrase "as long as". My answer : D

1. point-2-b-noted: a request has been denied. underlined part is the request. C: "should be expand" is not grammatically correct D: "would have been" is not right because the request has still not been executed. E:"had to be expanded" is not right because the "request" is still not executed so use of had is not correct. "had" is used to show something that happened in past's past :) A,B are close competitor and they differ only by presence and absence of should. With "request", "should" is too assertive - kill A. B is in a good "subjunctive" mood :) My answer : B 2.with "directive prohibiting" makes a run-on hence eliminate C,D with B it sounds as if country was banned on medical grounds ! A, E are close statment requires a subjunctive mood so let A be the one !! E also has other vices like it is passive because of the use of "being" My answer A

evidences are: 1. { M > B } 2. [ N > T ] we have to find out the one option which counters M > T option 1: B = N implies { M > B } =[ N > T ] ----> (M > T) option 2: B > T implies { M > B} > T -----> ( M > T) option 3: B = T implies {M > B} = T ----> (M > T) option 4: M = N implies M = [N > T ] -----> (M > T) option 5: N > B it can imply N > T > M > B or it can imply N > M > T > B or .... So one cannot conclude (M > T)

thanks kk...

or How to blow up your GMAT due to absence of stamina :) So its not really a score where people would look upto to you and ask for how-you-did-it. In fact you would ask me what-the-hell-you-did. Anyways here are the break ups Q:49 V:17 .... things were not all that bad when i gave GMATPrep and PR and my score was in band of 690 - 710. I just bombed that day...I never thought i would get a score as low as that. Postmortem: After lots of analysis I found out the root cause - ENDURANCE. I conducted an experiment to prove. My preparation was based on OG11, I did not do OG10, so I did two sets of 41 Verbal questions from OG10 in a sitting of 75min + 75min + change and found out that my average error was about 8 in the first part and 11 in the second part. This was consistent for three such experiments and then slowly I started improving and started feeling less of exhaustion (also this helped me finish my OG10 as a bonus!). So my word of advice : if you suspect exhaustion can kill your performance, kindly plan to do lots of test before exam... Life Ahead: I have scheduled my exam on 13th Sept but I feel I should be doing more tests (want to be super sure on edurance) and hence planning to delay it by 2-3 week. Please let me know if you have any word of advice for me - I badly need motivation from the testmagicians .... what according to you can be a good strategy for the last week.

Tolga... I share the same experience with you I got 570 with Q:49 and V:17. Though I was getting 700+ in all the tests (GPREP, PR). I was as amazed as you are when i landed up in 570...and frankly i had no clue and i just thought it to be a bad day. However, one of my friend (gnat 700+ guy) asked me to do an experiment. He asked me to take TWO sets of 41 questions from OG and do it one after another, finishing 41 questions in 75 min... I did this (and this way also completed OG10) experiment three times. Believe it or not for the first 41 question my error rate was consistently in range of 6-9 and for the next 41 question it was between 8-13.... The picture was now clear...it was an ENDURANCE problem... So its important to understand that doing verbal after 1hr of AWA and 1:15hrs of Quant is where you have to target. After doing this exercise so many time..i can see my stamina has build up... So one word of advice: practice verbal in stamina mode... HTH. Forget about 2 attempts, crack your third attempt...may the force be with you !!

A: "depend less on artistic quality" does not mean "artistic quality" is unimportant...eliminate B: there is nothing which shows this fact...eliminate D: there is no way we can infer the thought process of movie photgrapher...eliminate E: this is mentioned in the last line of the passage...eliminate C: Is the one !!

Why not D ... here is my thought about it... In CR, usage of most/some etc have to be looked at with suspicion. Since "some" of the american who follow low cal diet are long lived - we cannot infer anything in general.

Philosopher57, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. For a moment let me hold mathematics and use reasoning and logic. Conclusion : New govt have made things better in terms of unemployment growth. It claims that by curtailing growth rate to below 20% it has made things better - and as you have said "an arguement should hold good in all circumstanes" ... so if there is a percentage 'X' which is less than 20% and which shows that things are not getting better in term of rate of employment then this "arguement is NOT holding good in all circumstances" ... pause... meaning thereby : "reasoning is vulnerable to criticism" Now starts the hunt for this 'X' One possibility (as you say) is 16% - this will not refute the claim - no problem. Another possibility is 17% (my particular choice) which shows us "argument is not holding good" So the maths i did and the value i chose shows that 16% rate over a larger-base can be worse that 20% over a smaller-base Let me know if you still see some mathematical con job here :)

gsunder23 : "The passage says that VCR's hurt the business of Advertisers in television" - I am afraid it is not the right. passage TELLS(impartially) that Advertisers claim that VCRs are causing a loss to there revenue. Passage is taking no sides as such. Now a stmt that can be qualified as "strengthning" should have new_evidence to show that VCRs => Advertiser's loss of revenue. Similarily a stmt that can be qualified as "weakning" should have evidence disproving VCRs => Advertiser's loss of revenue. Look at C, does it adding any *new* evidence...perhaps not. This stmt only indicates that VCR under production can do removal automatically. Suppose that VCR's are the culprit then C says that the future of advertisers is even darker thanks to the automation...

Philospher, vediagaurav et al please provide why B cannot be eliminated. To me it looks like POE will eat out all of them ...can you explain how B is "supporting" the claim - thanks in advance - AquaRezia

EEEEEEEnough is EEEEEEEnough.

Well first things first : I go for D and here is a rough explanation This question falls in the cause-effect variety of question. One can picture the argument as follows: Lower Immunity =(implies)=> Lower Score on Mental test Lets for a change look at this statement : "when its night there is no sun" The way it is worded you feel as if night is causing the sun's absence. However we know sun's absence causes night.... What D says is that author is assuming mental illness NOT to be cause.

apexjay...on the lighter side...if you swear by princeton-review then "premise is evidence" and if you are kaplan fella then "evidence is premise" :):p At least to me it is the same...

To support D, lets go back to maths: Suppose before the tenure of opposition party 1000 people were unemployed. After opposition term was over 20% increase was there so now 1200 people were unemployed. => 200/4 -> 50 extra people unemployed per year Now if the current govt had say 17% increase (less than 20%) in unemployment - it means over a period of 4 years we have 1.17*1200 = 1404 people unemployed. This means 204/4 = 51 extra people unemployed...this evidence kills the conclusion.

I agree with Philosopher...C makes no sense as in this case it will hurt the business in future but not the present business...

thanks t-magicians for explaining me this point !