orangesun

Which schools are you applying to? What percentile are your scores, and please post your AWA score when you receive it. To me, the verbal scores seems quite low, although your quantitative score is excellent! It might be worth retaking. Perhaps you had a bad day that day, or you got unlucky with the questions, especially the first few that count the most. So yeah, if you have the chance to take it again, I would suggest brushing up on your verbal skills and retaking it.

Those scores are not that bad, although the quantitative score could be higher for engineering schools (since you're applying to one of the top 7). Your verbal score is decent as well. 5.0 is not bad, don't be discouraged by the percentile. They only come in .5 increments so there are only 2 numbers higher than yours so there are large percentage jumps between the scores. But 5.0 is good (above average), considering the average is around 4.0 or so. The risk involved in taking it again is that you might do worse. Even if you do not do worse, improving slightly does not make a big difference on the overall application. And there is always a chance you get the same score, furthering drawing attention to the scores which you were worried about in the first place. Thus, unless you are confident you can do significantly better next time (improving by 100 points or more on a section, or in your case, getting something higher than 5.0 on the AWA), I don't think you should retake them. However, if you have time to study and think you are able to improve your AWA scores significantly, then by all means go for it. Are you only worried about your AWA? If so, I really don't think a 5.0 should warrant a retake. Besides, I don't think engineering schools look too much at the AWA and Verbal Scores that much, as long as they are somewhat above average. I think if the rest of your application is strong (and from what you said about your references and work experience it seems that's the case) you shouldn't worry about it too much.

I don't remember the exact scores, but on the real tests the verbal scores (I didn't really do any math) were around 700, between 580 and 800. Several were around 650, 620, and 730. On the Kaplan I think around 780, PowerPrep 740 and 750, and around 650 in Arco.

There are two more years left until I am a senior (I am taking a year off this year to focus on research so in two years I will graduate). Also, I got my AWA score yesterday: 6.0. =) Of course, I'll still visit this forum from time to time although I have finished my GREs. Scores/Percentiles Q800 / 92% V760 / 99% AWA 6.0 / 96%

great score! congrats! :)

yup, practicing to take the gre, power prep, by ETS I just meant real practice tests and not imitations made by a prep company or anything

On the verbal section, the pattern is very much like the PowerPrep in terms of difficulty and format. At least on my test, the quantitative section was the same too, although I have heard that for some people the actual GRE quantitative questions are more difficult. I don't recall what is actually in Barron's list, but I'm sure there were a lot of words from there. No obscure words though.

And still waiting for my writing score to come in (expecting around a 5.5). I'm glad it's finally over and I got it out of the way. Read on if you want to hear how I prepped for the test. Date taken June 9th, 2005 9:00 AM appointment The test At first, the guy at the testcenter misread the expiration date on my passport (he read Jun 7 2005 as Jun 7 2005) and informed me that it had recently expired. I hadn't checked the expiration date so I assumed that he was right, and just as I was phoning someone to ask her to get another form of identification, he realized his mistake and everything continued. We have to sign a form pledging not to reveal anything about the actual tests questions to any "person or entity". So the writing section came first, then verbal, then math. The writing went okay, although I just barely finished in the last few seconds before time ran out. Verbal was okay, one of the RC I received was pretty obscure, which is probably where I missed all my points. Math was straightforward, no tricks there. One thing that threw me off was getting two of those data/graphs sets instead of one, since these questions take me a little longer than the others to do. The testroom was very quiet and comfortable and they had earmuffs that block out any noise. Only one other girl was there taking the GRE that day, I think. You're not allowed to take any extraneous items into the testroom, not even pencils, which are provided by them. At the end of the test, I had an experimental verbal section, which they indicate is for researches purposes and your score will not be reported. It 45 minutes with 35 questions, and probably will reflect the form of the new GRE to be effective starting October 2006. Anyway, again I'm glad it's over with and I never have to worry about it again. Although, soon I will GRE Subject tests in math and physics to worry about :(. I will be applying to graduate school two years from now in electrical engineering =) But for now, no more GRE! Best of luck to anyone who takes the test in the future! Preparation Overall, to prepare for the exam, I did about 3 full weeks of intense (about 10 hours each day) studying up until my exam on June 9th. Also, last summer I had done some preparation, but it mostly light studying that involved just doing some practice tests if I had free time, and learning some new vocab. The total studying from last summer probably only amounts to one full week of intense studying. Books/Resources -PowerPrep (verbal lessons and practice tests) -Other Real tests (about 50 total. e.g., practicing to take the GRE. by real tests, I just meant real practice tests with questions that appeared on actual GREs administered by ETS as opposed to imitations made by a prep company or something) -Non-official materials: Kaplan (2 books, one for CAT GRE, one containing one practice test), Barrons, Princeton Review (WordSmart, Cracking the GRE), Arco (one on CAT GRE, one on MAT, although the second wasn't very helpful), some others as well -Other resources: Forums, such as TM, vocabulary lists online Math I didn't do any preparation for the math part contentwise, but I did do all all the practice tests (I believe there were 4 of them) in the Kaplan book, and the day before I took the GRE, I did one of the math tests on the PowerPrep 3.0 (I saved one of the PowerPrep tests for the day before the exam). Verbal For the verbal part, I mostly focused on improving my reading comprehension skills, since that was my major weakness, and memorizing some more words (although the vocabulary wasn't a big problem for me). I did about 10 LSAT practice tests (the RC part only), in addition to all the verbal questions in my practice books. Also I reviewed all the old vocabulary that I knew, and learned a lot of new words. To improve my vocabulary, I kept a vocabulary notebook and wrote down all the words I didn't know in every practice test I did or came across otherwise. I typed up a lot of vocabulary lists, ranging from 30-200 words, and memorized them in one sitting. I did this a little less than ten times, picking up about 500-1000 new words in these few weeks, my vocabulary was already relatively strong from before. I did a bunch of practice tests, verbal parts only. Probably over 60 in all, although I didn't do any of the reading sections from most of the older tests and some of the other tests I never got around to. Writing I spent about two or three full days preparing for the writing part. The only commercial resources I used was the Arco book and a Kaplan book on AWA essays for the GRE and GMAT. I also looked online on forums (including this one) to see some examples of essays that other people had written to get an idea of what to write about. Also, last summer I did read through some sample essays, and got a general idea of the argument section. I even worked through a bunch of analytical/logical reasoning from the old format problems to improve my argument skills. So anyway, during the three days I spent prepping for the writing part, for the first day or two, I focused on the argument part, and wrote about 5-10 practice essays. I tried reading through every argument and jotting down notes for each one but just didn't have time, since I was doing this with less than 3 days left until the exam. Then I spent a few hours reading through the issues (read over about 90% of them), wrote down some ideas for the topics I might have trouble with, and wrote one practice essay. Preparation tips For the verbal part, to improve RC and vocabulary, the best long-term strategy is, of course, to read. I would recommend New York Times (even the online version at nytimes.com. this can provide some ideas for the issue essay on the AWA and keep you an informed citizen as well), and I hear the New Yorker is also good and representative of the types of passages the GRE draws its questions from. However, if you're really tight on time, like I was, memorizing word lists is not a bad idea. Keep a vocabulary notebook, and write down all the words you don't know that you come across. To really make memorizing words worthwhile, it really helps to go back to words you came across earlier, otherwise you will end up forgetting the words you learned in a few days. You can also write the original context you found them in; for instance, I wrote the analogy or the antonym the word originally appeared in. Some people like to write the sentence they originally appeared in but that takes too long so I didn't do that. Start your preparation early, and be sure to occassionally review previous words. For the writing part, I would suggest becoming familiar with the topics and writing a few practice essays. Read through several of the sample essays in the Arco book - the author is a fantastic writer. Although knowledge beyond that of a normal person is not assumed for the writing part, it doesn't hurt to pick up some ideas for the issues from newspapers or the radio. Good luck!!

thanks for the reply. i think "double" is supposed to be "doubt" (i found this question online so it was probably just a typo), which would make more sense.

can someone please explain these bridge? MOTIVE : DEED :: double : question ELLIPSIS : WORD :: apostrophe : letter i know the motive of a deed is the reason for doing something, but what is a double?? i don't have the other answer choices.

The English novelist thackeray considered the cult of the criminal so dangerous that he criticised Dickens' oliver twist for making the characters in the theives kitchen so ... threatrening riveting conniving fearsome irritating the novelist criticized Dickens for depicting such a fascinating/enticing/ riveting character steep relax repulse plummet clarify parch (steep = to soak) recumbent well fortified standing up lacking flexibility constricted alarmed (recumbent = leaning/resting) gratuitous thankless warranted trying discreet spurious (gratuitious = freely given, unwarranted) Diversity is essential inspite of the fact that it ... a universal acceptance of a single doctrine underlies entails reserves precludes presupposed (diversity prevents the acceptance of a single doctrine) tender:acceptance publish:wisdom exhibit:inspection scrutinise:foresight authorise:approval declare:observation (X is to prepare for Y)

illumination is decorative lighting on a manuscript. frieze is something decorative on a wall

Please critique my outline, thanks! 57. Zorba The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health. "Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well." Conclusion : Zorba is effective in preventing ulcers, and if the public is informed first-time ulcers can be prevented Premises -A study suggests that Zorba helps prevent ulcers (25% of those who took Zorba developed ulcers, 75% recurrence rate who did not take Zorba) A.) Questionable study -sample size is unclear -medicine was taken under a doctor’s direction, unclear whether the dose was the same -other conditions of the two groups the same? -did patients take any other medicine at this time, unclear. Perhaps people who were taking Zorba felt they needed to supplement this with another medicine (i.e., confounding variables that may have led to the difference between control and experimental group), and it was another pill that accounted for the low recurrence rate -what was the severity of the ulcers? -the significance of the percentages is unclear. Assuming the study was valid, perhaps another medicine works even better, possibly curing all recurrences -representative of the entire population? B.) Perhaps the medicine was not the cause for the difference in the numbers -incorrectly attributes a lower recurrence rate, at least partly, to Zorba -Perhaps the improvement in recurrence rate was caused by other factors as well that only the group who took Zorba possessed. ulcers can be related to health/nutrition. Ulcer recurrence rate can vary within individuals, perhaps not related to amount of Zorba taken. E.g., supplemented intake of Zorba w/ other medicines, more motivated/careful to cure ulcers, people in the first group generally healthier to begin with, better health habits, etc. C.) Informing the public does not necessarily mean -even if the medicine is effective, does not mean that people will buy it (some people might not want to be treated or not concerned about their health, some might prefer other medicines, some people might be allergic, concern side-effects, economic differences between people) -even if they buy it, they need to follow the prescription, take it correctly, etc. -even if it is effective in preventing reoccurrence of it, the assumption that it is also effective to prevent first-time ulcers is groundless. First-time ulcers can have fundamentally different causes than recurrence of ulcers D.) Possibility of other medicines -unclear what the authority of these “health experts” are -not compared to other medicines, perhaps another medicine is more effective -side effects not mentioned, perhaps the side effects outweigh the benefits of the medicine. Perhaps the prevention of ulcers are only temporarily prevented

Please rate my logic, thanks! 58. The following appeared in an article from a popular newsmagazine. 58The following appeared in an article from a popular newsmagazine. "In 1888 a stone was unearthed in northern Wisconsin with an inscription in an old Scandinavian alphabet and bearing the date 1362. Scandinavians were not, however, exploring or emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteenth century. Recent analysis proves, in fact, that the stone had been buried in the spot where it was found for no more than 100 years. Moreover, the community near the discovery site was home to a group of people who had formed a club to study medieval Scandinavian culture—a period that includes the fourteenth century. The stone, therefore, is not a genuine artifact of medieval Scandinavian culture inscribed in the fourteenth century but most likely a hoax perpetrated by the group." Conclusion - the stone found was probably a hoax Premises 1.) Scandinavians were not exploring or emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteenth century 2.) Recent analysis shows that the stone had been buried for less than 100 years. 3.) A group of people near the site had formed a club to study medieval Scandinavian culture A.) People other than Scandinavians brought the stone to the area -evidence presented is insufficient to prove that the stone had not existed since 1362 -the Scandinavians don't need to be emigrating or exploring Wisconsin for the stone to be created -perhaps they had been living for a while (so they were not considered immigrants in the US) and did not go on explorations, but still carved characters onto stone -possible that Scandinavians were actually exploring/emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteen century but wasn't recorded -perhaps made by craftsmen who were not scandinavian but knew the written characters of Scandinavia -brought there by merchants from Scandinavia -evidence to show who brought the stone there B.) is the method used in the recent analysis reliable? -presents no evidence of reliability of the the recent analysis or the methods used -need further scientific analysis of the stone! C.) even if the recent analysis was reliable, there is no justification for a hoax and no justification for the conclusion -he assumes that the artifact is a hoax, and furthermore claims that it is perpetuated by the group of people near the site. -the fact that the stone had been buried less than 100 years cannot account for the possibility that it had actually existed in the 14th century but wasn't buried until recently. -e.g., it could have been previously owned by someone and not buried, displayed in a museum, lying on the floor but not buried, or it wasn't brought into Wisconsin until recently, Scandinavians left the stone in another part of the US, which got transferred to Wisconsin, etc. (many possibilities) -possible that ppl other than Scandinavians brought the stone to the area for cultural, educational reasons, etc. owned by someone, then after hundreds of years it was discarded, then covered by soils -someone from American journeyed to Scandinavia, and brought the stone back to Wisconsin, or somewhere else then eventually it got transferred to Wisconsin -evidence to show whether the stone is a hoax, or if it is an authentic stone but simply been moved over 100 years ago D.) granted that it is a hoax, it does not mean that it is perpetuated by the people near the group. -the author questionably equates a temporal relationship between the group and the artifact to a cause and effect relationship. -possible that it had been planted there by someone else -perhaps it wasn't planted, but some people from Scaninavia could have visited northern Wisconsin and brought the stone from their homeland, and left it on the floor -if it is a hoax, evidence to show who actually moved it -unless the author considers and elminates all other plausible causes of this, the argument is subject to criticism

Please critique my argument outline! 61. Eyleria The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria. "Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years." 1.) 1:5 ratio does not mean that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily. -this is an average, some regions have less than this ratio. it's possible that some schools don't even have computers. author overlooks gap between rural and urban regions. quite possible that in impoverished towns and villages, access to a computer is only a dream, not a daily routine as suggested by the article. -even in a school that has such a ratio, all students do not necessarily have access to use computers daily whenever they want to. for intsance, if every student wanted to use the computer at once, five may have to share. 2.) 1:7 ratio doesn't mean by the time they graduate they will be proficient -again, not necessarily every student will be able to access a computer -even assuming that this number is sufficient to afford a decent education, just having available computers doesn't assume proficiency -i.e., students must be motivated, time spent using computer is relevant, there must be educational things to do on the computer, willing to do the work, the curriculum must be effective. a lack of this support would undermine the author's argument. on the contrary, the author could strengthen his argument by showing that having a computer would necessarily lead to computer proficiency. 3.) there are many reasons to spend money on computers or other technology -even provided that the current 1:7 ratio is sufficient to ensure that students will be proficient in computer tech, this is not the only reason to spend money -author unfairly infers that technology will remain unchanged over time. absent evidence to support this highly unlikely inference, it is just as likely that computer technology can change in the next few years, will need to spend money to accomodate for this, pay for changes in curriculum, replace/repair computers, printers, upgrading hardware/software etc, to pay to upgrade skills -spending money for other technology is necessary, perhaps in engineering and areas outside of computer technology