ekvall

Just as quick update for anyone interested: 740 seems to have been sufficient to at least receive an interview from my target schools. I have received an invite from IESE, Harvard and Wharton so far, but am yet to hear from Stanford. Good luck to everyone out there applying in round 2 or 3 - I hope you all get in where you want to! Kind regards, Erik

Your score will definately improve with effort mate. Many posters on these boards recommend 2 to 3 months, but with a bit of focused effort you can definately pull your score up considerably in 4-6 weeks. In my opinion, it is significantly easier to increase your performance on the quant than on the verbal. The quant essentially has about 20 different questions, just with different wording, and it doesn't take too long to learn them all. The verbal, on the other hand, is hard to improve significantly above re-studying basic grammar (e.g. the manhattan SC guide). As a case in point, my first gmatprep test was around the 550-600 mark and my actual gmat score was 740 after 6 weeks of study.

Thanks for your input guys. There is a way to solve it easily, and its called the remainder theorem. I know how to apply it generally, but I have a specific aspect of it that I don't quite grasp. I'll email that guy though - cheers!

That...is...gold!

Hi guys, I sat my GMAT yesterday and received a 740 (Q46, V46). My practice tests score have been a pretty good indicator of performance. They are: GMATPrep 1 (two weeks ago): 730 (Q48, Q41) GMATPrep 2 (one week ago: 750 (Q48, V45) GMATPrep 1 (resit two days before the exam): 750 (Q48 V46)IMO, my low quant score on the day was not due to differences in difficulty, but more due to the centre not having a pen that worked properly. I am definately smuggling in my own pen next time, as they seemed quite slack about that sort of stuff.

Effective factor: In terms of difficulty on the test, I would rank the CRs as the easiest. This of course varies alot between people, but I think I got most CRs right, and I haven't really studied this area more than a day or two. The SCs and the RC were the challenging areas IMO. As for quant, the questions themselves were very straight forward, and I obviously should have gotten a few more right. I'm resitting the exam on January 5 (already booked this in weeks ago), and I'm aiming for a 48-49 on that day. The following comes to mind about quant on yesterday's test: There wasn't a single permutation or combination problem on there I also had no coordinate geometry questions, but that may be because I messed up the first two questions as the pen didn't work Most questions were the same difficulty as those in GMATPrep 75 percent of the data sufficiency questions were related to number theory or inequalities It was generally easy to recognise which questions were experimental, as they were significantly easier than the other ones (of course, the alternative hypothesis is that I didn't understand that they were hard ;D)Hope that helps!

Hey buddy! Good to see fellow Brisbanites on here. Send me a PM if you're still around and we'll meet up for a beer one day!

First of all: Thanks for all the positive energy guys! This forum just has some of the nicest people around! I would say the SC difficulty level was about that of the OG material, besides the fact that there seemed to be about 14 or 15 of them. It wasn't hard to narrow it down to two choices, and I never got any of those really lengthy SC passages. The concepts that were tested the most (in order of appearance): parallelism, modifiers, idioms and verb tenses. Interestingly, I got maybe three or four SCs where only three words were underlined, and in those cases they were generally after the idiom. The RCs however were, in my opinion, more complicated than those in the OG. The questions were exactly the same as they have always been, but the subject matter was just alot more complicated, so I needed to read through each passage very closely, before I started answering questions, just to make sure that I had the logic and causality right. I believe there were four passages in total on the test. When preparing for RCs, I only used the official material and the guidelines from Kaplan 800. I also think that you only really need to pratice either RC or CR in detail, since these two areas pretty much test the same skills: attentive reading and logical reasoning.

Hi guys, So I finally sat my GMAT today, and I was happy to see that the score was 740. Unfortunately the quant slipped somewhat from my practice tests, but I feel a lot of that was due to not having a single pen that worked in the test room. My kingdom for a pen, or at the very least a chisel! I thought I would list a few of the main lessons that I have learnt over the last six weeks: Taking time off before the test can trim down the time requirements: Since scoring a 550 on GMATPrep in October, I spent a total of six weeks preparing for this test, with about 2-3 hours per day and 10-12 hours in total on weekends. The key for me was taking a week off before the test, to really focus in on my weak areas, and in that week I brought my GMATPrep scores up from about 650 to 750. The official guides are great, but you may need to go elsewhere to really get your head around quant: In my preparation I worked through OG11 and the two supplementary books once. After that, I started going through more advanced math workbooks since I hadn't really got ahold of the more tricky concepts yet (and still haven't, to be fair). The two most valuable books for me was EZTutorials Advanced Math Workout and the Manhattan Word Problems guide. Contribute to this forum and read through everyone's reasoning: I am quite confident that reading explanations, particularly in the math sub-section, really helped improve my basic math skills. There are too many specific people to mention, so I'll just thank you all! Get sentence correction right: Something like 14-15 questions in the verbal area where SCs, and they got down right silly towards the end - so you really need to nail this area to do well. Fortunately, with good books (Manhattan SC, Kaplan 800) and a little practice you will do well. And in my opinion, as long as you've got a basic understanding of English, having it as your second language won't really make too much of a difference in your final score.And that's what I had. Please don't hesitate to post if you have any specific questions, and I'll be happy to muddy the waters with largely incoherent babble. Have a great week!

Sum of the squares of the coordinates means that if point P is (X,Y), then the sum of the squares is X^2 + Y^2, which just happens to be the pythagorean theorem you would apply to find the radius of the circle. As such, A is right.

I would also say that D is right. 1: Simplifies to 1/x - 1/z, thus the result could be anything 2: Simplifies to (1+Z-1)/Z = 1 3: Simplifies to 2Z/Z = Z

I get 40 as well. Is the OA legitimate?

E is probably right. Take the integer 12 for instance: It has factors 2, 3, 6 and 12. 1: Not true 2: Not true (if choosing factor 12 and factor 2 for instance) 3: Not true

Agree med John. 96 only has one odd factor (3), and as such if the number is odd, then this factor must be at the end of the three-letter integer.

Thanks for that mate! I hadn't thought of that angle at all. That's probably what it is! Now I can go into my exam in about 5 hours just that little bit better informed ;D

I had a quick crack at all three. Hope this helps: 1: 4^11 is the same as 2^22, which is 2^21 if you cancel out the two on the left side. You are then left with 5^21 x 2^21 = 10^n which is the same as 10^21 = 10^n after collapsing the two expressions on the left side. It then follows that n = 21. 16: Left side's 2^x * 2^(x-2) is the same as 2^X - 2^X * 2^(-2). You can tell pull out 2^X and divide both sides by (1 - 2^-2), which is equal to 3/4. This ultimately leaves you with 2^x = 2^17 3: You have a sequence that goes (2*4*6*8...100)+1, which is the same as a sequence that goes 2(1*2*3*4*5...50)+1. From the second sequence it can be seen that no numbers under 50 will be a factor of this expression. This question was really solved by one of the geniuses in the math area, I just remembered if from reading it earlier.

The passage claims that the new legislation would be successful (i.e. reduce instances of the disease) because younglings wouldn't be able to purchase games anymore. D is right, as the conclusion above assumes that parents wouldn't just buy the games for their kids (as they probably already are). I.e. if D isn't assumed, then the new legislation may have no impact at all.

Question 1: D wins. E is out because it incorrectly uses the term "both" in relation to the verb "rooted" (there is only one comparison, albeit to two people).

Could someone confirm that the algorithm of my GMATPrep isn't completely out of whack? I know it sounds like a little ridiculous, but I'm consistently getting Q48s on quant with as many as 13 problems. I am of course happy-as-can-be about it, I just don't want to show up on the day and have my score be like 100 points lower. If it is working properly, then it goes to show that the first 10 questions are soooo important. You can literally get the last 10 questions wrong and still score a Q48.

OA is , i.e. that only II is right. In my mind however, III is also right. The official guide states that III is wrong because T would need to be over 6 for this to be right, so it isn't necessarily true. And that is where I disagree! For today, the lowest age that Tina can be is 4, since Sam is 3 years younger. If Tina was anything less than 4, for instance 3, that would make Sam 0, thus making it impossible for Rose to be twice as old as Sam. So, in 4 years, the minimum age that Tina can be in 4 years is 8, making Sam 5 and Rose 10. For every year after that, the distance between Tina and Rose only increases. So tell me, am I insane? It wouldn't be the first time I've been told! ;D

Hi guys, This one is Q76 from the Quant OG. I really can't see how the OA is right, so I thought I'd let you guys have a crack at it: "Today Rose is Twice as old as Sam and Sam is 3 years younger than Tina. If Rose, Sam and Tina are all alive 4 years from today, which of the following must be true on that day?" 1: Rose is twice as old as Sam 2: Sam is 3 years younger than Tina 3: Rose is older than Tina The alternatives: (A) I only (B) II only © III only (D) I and II (E) II and III." Hope you have the same trouble with the OA (next post) as I have!

IMO: A wins. And I don't believe it's just the "reputable" part that excludes D. If you turn the question around, we are bascially asked to weaken the student's claim that: "journalists could just make up their own stories if the only requirement is that the information is original and of interest". D argues a parallel point to this, i.e. that some journalists that actually have sources don't publish them. While this may be true, it is still off topic and does little to either strengthen or weaken the argument.

That's a little high samal, but thanks for trying. I finally figured it out. Turns out I was just doing a simple calcuation mistake on the actual test. Case 1: 1 senior, 2 junior = 4C1 * 6C2 = 4 * 15 = 60 Case 2: 2 senior, 1 junior = 4C2 * 6C1 = 6 * 6 = 36 Case 3: 3 senior = 4C3 = 4 Total: 100 combinations.

Would anyone mind having a look at this one again? I am getting stuck pretty quickly, and none of the answers provided so far are right, in my mind

Ref cartman: I seem to remember reading in the official briefing notes that lines in data sufficiency drawings can be assumed to be straight if they look straight