check.stone

There's no set rule. As you're no doubt aware, we can say, "He will eat and he will sleep," or "He will eat and will sleep," or "He will eat and sleep." All are correct, though we tend to use the last to eliminate the tedium of having say the same things over and over. The key thing as in this problem is to ensure that parallelism is maintained. If you see multiple participles, how are they being used. If they're verbs, do they require the same helping verbs? C is missing a helping verb. In E, the participles are correctly used as adjectives. Some participles can be adjectives in present and past forms, and some, only in one or the other form. Good luck with your studies.

This popped up in my e-mail after all these weeks. Kind of takes me back to...last week, when I was still prepping for the test. To answer your question, "which were differing" would be correct, but it's not written as such in C. "Differing" would have to be preceded by "which were" or at least "were" so that you could see it's in ll with "which were determined." Just having "differing" creates a non-ll structure which E corrects.

Got 6 on AWA. If you have time, I'd read through verbal explanations in OG for the last third. I'm sure I'd have benefitted from doing that leadin up to the test. Good luck:tup:

Wandered over here to answer your query. Yeah, why not. Go Kiwis! Should be heckuva semifinals match. This is sort of like the Olympics for me. I'll root you on, maybe even watch the match, but I have no idea who anyone is other than the national uniforms.

I think you should stick pretty much to the AWA templates. Intro, conc, and 2-4 body paragraphs. It's better to have a couple of minutes left over at the end to proofread and make changes as needed (all writing requires proofreading and making some changes) than to cram in another idea or two that don't advance your analysis. Even if they do, you're writing a page, page and a half at most so what's the point in going on? I found myself drifting a bit on my first essay and had to bring myself back on topic. Second essay was therefore a bit shorter and better. Jotting down your main points on the board's a good idea so you know you're hitting them as you write or have covered them once you're done. Improvising's not a good idea once you've decided on the direction and the supporting points. There's just not that much time and these essays aren't for the debate society anyhow. Allow yourself a range and not a specific number on the test, and that'll better put you at ease. Good luck! Cyprus is on my list of places to visit some day.

Hey man. Good score but those of us who've spent time on this board know you had an off day on the test. Hope your move's gone well. Almost certainly no need to re-take to get your school, but good luck should you decide to re-take it.

Appreciate it guys. Didn't see a score thread from you asterix so I'm assuming you'll post your 750 or so in another few weeks. And chris, I see you made out quite well with this lunatic test as well. Congrats on a fine job to you. What about this Commonwealth Cup you guys call the World Cup? How are your boys making out?

The prep materials and tests, especially the GMATPrep, are very good indicators of what you'll do on the test. I started off with a 700 on GMATPrep #1 and got a 770 on #2. By the time the test came around, I pegged myself at 750 + or - 30. As GMAC says, anyone's performance varies on a given day. The other practice tests fell in line with those. The difference I mainly attribute to focusing more on GMATPrep 2 since I knew it was the real thing, or as close as I was going to get to it before taking the test. One of the things I did after taking 1 was to avoid doing any problems here that were from GMATPrep 2 so my score wouldn't be distorted. I got a 48/47 so I felt really good considering I could see the quant mistakes plainly - not taking the inverse for the answer and so forth. The score undermined me as I really slacked until the day before the test because of the sense of security it gave me, when in fact my verbal had really been erratic in the prior 3-4 practice tests. The things I said about the verbal section above really does come into play as I got the bolded ID the reasoning question on #18, giving me pretty good indication I hadn't missed more than one, maybe two, up to that point. From there, I unravelled a bit, exactly like building up a lead in a game then letting it melt away. More than likely, I missed consecutive questions at least once and missed a few others on top of that. The difficulty of the questions never seemed to ease up, even though logically they must have gotten somewhat easier. I've seen tough questions at the end on both the prep tests and on the real thing, so the notion that you can do well without doing well at the end is bogus unless you manage to be perfect through the 30 or so questions you do answer. You may be able to get a 600, or even 700 with guessing at the end, but certainly nothing beyond that. In essence, I cut down on my math errors by 4-5, while hardly making a dent on verbal. I don't mean to discourage anyone. I did improve on verbal enough to expect a 44-45 on the exam, with an outlyer possibilty that I could approach 50. So what happened? I could have gotten lucky on a couple of the early questions and got too cocky and rushed through the remaining verbal when I should have stayed focused. Also, once I achieved the level of proficiency for a mid 40s verbal, I didn't take care to maintain it with consistent review in the last month. In part that was because I wanted to get a 11, 12 test time and have taken the test a month ago but not being able to find a later time slot. There'sa competition for good time slots as with anything else. So I finally just signed up for the morning weeks after I should have taken the test. I'd built up to take the test probably 3-4 weeks ago. The delay in taking it while waiting for that afternoon slot did me no favors. I sat around not prepping as much as I had in the month prior to that when I was solidly in the 740-760 band. The second GMATPrep probably did me no favors as I really tailed off in my prep the last week and a half. Realizing this, I tried a cram session the last night before the test to reassure myself, and even so, I chose to work on the wrong section. So, study more verbal. Did I say verbal? Yup. You've got to get in the groove and stay there, and don't delay taking the test for whatever reason except too low a prep test score. If you're where you want to be on consecutive prep tests, you're ready. It's a performance and you do have a peak date. Pay attention to the evidence of the practice scores. Assess from the numbers and not from your perception of your abilities. I should have done a thorough verbal review in the two weeks leading up to the test (48-50 on quant and erratic verbal). I'd planned on it but with Easter there last week, I got almost nothing in last weekend and mid-week is what it is. After getting my verbal up to mid 40s, I ignored it to focus on quant. A mistake since I think it's easier to achieve and maintain math knowledge than the very particular way of processing info that GMAT verbal requires. If you're consistently doing questions on this board or elsewhere from the GMATPrep software, you should have a very accurate indication of where you stand from those two tests. So you've got room to improve only just slightly on quant, where it's more a matter of reading the questions correctly and managing your time. Trust the evidence on the quant and start working your verbal to achieve similar consistency.

Thanks bro. I haven't been to this part of the site much so I missed your score until just a bit ago. You rocked the quant man, congrats on your score! The verbal definitely got tiring and tiresome. I suspect that I did the worst on RC. For whatever reason, I started missing more on RC toward the last couple of practice tests and I'm pretty sure that held on the real thing. I just got done reading your debrief along with several others. I hadn't realized that Mike_Jung had already taken his by the time I landed on this site. I was wondering what happened to him. Now I know. Best of luck to you with your schools and beyond. We both probably should have spent a bit more time on verbal but I guess we made out all right, especially you with the 6 on AWA.

Just got done with it. A bit disappointed as I hit my quant avg but came in at the low end of verbal range. No plans to re-take it for now but who knows. I feel like I can do 50/50 but am certain there's not much point to trying, or even getting it for that matter. Main problem for me was fatigue/flagging attention in the second half of verbal. After maintaining good focus on the first 10-15 questions, I just couldn't get myself to stop thinking about getting the test over with and finding out my score, which I obviously couldn't do without finishing the test, leading to...more irritation. I also did a few things not so well leading up to the test. First, I did no verbal the last few weeks except in a couple of prep tests, figuring I'd be in my typical 43-45 range(had a high of 50 and a low of 39). I made sure to do a couple of hard prob/combo-permutation problems most days and pretty much mastered them. On the test, I don't recall getting a single one. Nope. Didn't see a one. Back to prep: I decided to re-do GMATPREP 1 a second time (did it once in Feb, GMATPrep 2 was a 770, done last week) around 11 p.m. instead of just sleeping as I had intended. Why? As a wise man once said, "**** knows." I came across a couple of DS geometry problems that had me stumped so I stayed up staring at them afterwards for an hour(I'd gotten a 49 and just clicked through the verbal). Solved them easily once I started doodling on paper but I couldn't see the solution mentally, which bugged me. So I fell asleep at 2 then was up at 6 to get to the test center by 7:30. I'm not a morning person so this was a double-whammy. Lastly, I never tried the essays, figuring I knew how to write and I wasn't going to bother with them. I had no trouble writing the essays but the extra hour spent at the beginning further added to my diminishing attention span/stamina at the end, and wasn't something I'd anticipated affecting me as it did. I got a bit sleepy and irritated with how long the test was taking, and knowing I'd in all likelihood hit my quant number just wanted to get the thing over with. That's a big mistake. Verbal takes more focus in my opinion than does quant so any distraction really trips you up. I wish they'd put it first but completely understand why they've got it last. So my tips for the test. Work on both section evenly. Do a decent amount of prep the day before but knock off early to be sharp for the test. Definitely get a full night's sleep. As my college roommate was fond of saying, "Well rested...well rested." You know what you know by that point and losing sleep over what you may not know isn't going to help you. I liken this to a skills test, or even a sporting event. You're not going to win the Indy 500 by getting in more driving time the day before anymore than you'll improve your free throw percentage by practicing all night before the big game. Longer term prep leading up to those events leads to improved performance, and the GMAT's the same thing. In fact, a bit of fatigue probably knocks a couple of 10s of points off your score since who can really stay focused under any circumstance for 4 hours? If you're not a morning person, try by all means to get a later time. With the test, stay zen - be with the question in front of you. Forget the last one and do the present one. Don't think about the next problem or how many are left or the person you can hear reading under her breath or strumming his fingers. Mentally cup your hand over her mouth and slap him once then erase them from your consciousness. That'll add 10-30 points to your score. GMAC has the data to support this and consequently employs people's tendencies to mumble, warble, fidget and strum to its schemes to undermine test-takers. And does this test really warrant all the finger scanning? Will retinal eye scans and voice-recognition be next? Maybe our kids will have to undergo on-the-spot DNA analysis to take the next generation GMAT. Maybe we should put GMAC in charge of airport/port/border security. There are posts with detailed study plans that I can't possibly add to. modusoperandi, Swiss_boy, spoud74, mike_jung, jonny_sunn, thankont, gdaga, catchamogh, and tweety32 are my TM co-conspirators. 800Bob I thought was just a phantom but he actually materialized in this space and deftly answered some thorny questions as his name suggested he could. So thanks to him, and to Erin for the site. Good luck to all of you with the test and admissions.

Hi M.O, I just got done taking this yesterday so it's still fresh on my mind. The reason B is off even though there's comparing and contrasting going on is that it's not just a round-robin listing of strengths and weaknesses of these three systems. The first paragraph clearly establishes TQM as the baseline model against which the other two are analysed. If there is a conclusion for these two paragraphs, it would have to be the first sentence of the second paragraph, which is nearly a paraphrase of choice D. Emphasis is clearly on TQM and how other management systems compare and contrast to it.

Payload is the key to finding the answer. By using trucks with smaller payloads, Partoria will be putting more trucks on the road to make up the shortfall, thereby increasing the number of accidents.

D doesn't make clear that the farmers are borrowing against both equipment and land. Also "against which" is considered the better construction.

C is wrong because the Supreme Court was merely re-affirming what Congress had done from 1871 on, treating Indian Affairs as legislative matters and not sovereign treaties. Congress didn't need Lone Wolf to do what they were already doing(lines 26-35). What they definitely lost in 1903 was the recourse they had to that point, appealing the actions of Cogress from 1871 on to the Supreme Court. So the OA is correct.

1) x1/4//1/2 = 1/2, true. try x=-2 => 4/2 = 2, false INSUFF 2) x>-1: try x=-1/2 => 1/2, true. try x=5 =>25/5 = 5, false INSUFF Together, yes for all numbers between -1 and 1. SUFF, C

Combining 1 & 2, we know the pie shape portion of the circumference is 120. Since xyz must then equal 240, we know arc r = 9; so circumference = 27.

i get confused with extra variables so set up the last bit as (3s+3n)/(4s+2n) = ?, then sub'd. 15/12 = 5/4

This is a 3-4-5 triangle problem so the hyp=25 since the sides are 15 and 20. when you drop the h perpendicular to the base of a 3-4-5 triangle you get 2 smaller 3-4-5 triangle(assuming we must have learned that somewhere and forgot it since it works out correctly). using either of the smaller triangles, you can get h of the bigger triangle as 12 since the two smaller 3-4-5s are 12-16-20 and 9-12-15. Solve 12*16/2 and the ans is 96.

understood overlap to be 2m on each side, giving 54/2 + 2 = 29. and since i've long since forgotten any values for sine cosine and all that, taking the 30-60-90 triangle formed by the lifted bridge, the horizontal side is 1/2 of the hypotenuse so 14.5 and subtracting 29 from 54, i get 25. the ans becomes 26 if the overlap adds only 1m to each side of the draw bridge, but that in my estimation makes the overlap 1m and not 2m.

Putting "it" in the sentence seemed wrong but the first two just sounded off, which I know is a lousy way to eliminate a choice when the exact reason isn't known. I can't quite tell apart A & B so if someone can tell me the diff that'd be appreciated. As for why A is right, I think both A & B have an implied "to be taking" at the end. That makes sense and seems to reveal some sort of high level ll comparsion structure. Still, what's the diff betwn A & B? Adv placements can change meaning but I can't see what's diff here, althoughh I do think A reads better.

M.O., can you post the OA for this now? A & B are the same and have the same unclear pronoun they. The "it" in D is like "they" in A & B with singular/plural mismatch to boot. Between C & E, I'll say C since originally should modify plastics and not the undefined "it".

A the passing B that they will sell C correct D intro of 2nd clause is awkward and of selling is better idiom E not parallel and awkward to boot

B is not the choice for stylistic reasons. It's wordy. There's no reason to use "there were", taking out of which would also require the removal of "who". Keep in mind that style is also a reason to choose one ans over another.

agree completely with wasleys, A.

far surpasses is the idiomatic way to say this and then among c, d & e, C has subj/verb disagreement, and D compares pieces to a geographical region. So E.