grad29

I've put in about 100 hours or so of studying to reach a 157ishV/155ishQ/5AW. I can't seem to crack into the 160s. I've completed the Princeton/ETS books/practice tests. I've studied Baron's vocabulary. I've scored a few 159s, but never a 160. ARGHHH. I'm currently on test #3 of Manhatten, so maybe I'll get there I don't know. Any advice, i mean am I just incapable of reaching a higher score? It seems like the long reading comprehension passages really get me on the verbal section. I find myself having to read through the same sentence multiple times to understand it.

Thanks.

Can someone post a link? I took there free practice test on the website, do I have to pay to take a second or is there a link? Thanks.

I've been having some trouble figuring out how much one can "infer" from the passages. For instance, take this part of a passage: "while the telomere seems on the surface to be nothing more than a useless afterthought of DNA, a closer look proves that it is not only important, but also crucial to the functioning of any organism" Can you infer from that excerpt "scientists once believed that telomeres served no useful purposes"? Because telomeres appear on the surface to be a "useless afterthought of DNA" and it takes a "closer look" to prove that's not true, why can't it be inferred that scientists once thought that telemores didn't have any useful functions? Perhaps before they took a "closer look" they thought telemores had no practical application. Yet I was incorrect in selecting this choice. What are the best ways to approach these types of verbal questions? To what extent should my inferences be made?

It was probably a bad test question. The real GRE won't reveal the correct answer by a simple "a" or "an". If they use an "an" all of the answer choices will probably start with vowels and vice versa.

160Q is pretty realistic. Just keep working on it. Keep doing practice questions. Then, realize where you made mistakes on the questions you get wrong and improve. If you do enough questions like this, your score will keep rising. Scoring a 150Q isn't that hard, so don't be too worried. A 160Q takes a bit of working at though. I'm at around a 155Q-158Q after about a month of studying, but that has included studying for the other 2 sections as well.

A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based The following was a timed essay I took on one of the Princeton practice tests: After investigating the merits of the claim that a person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and therefore should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from their labor it becomes apparent that there are situations in which the claim makes sense and in which it doesn't. Generally speaking, a person should lose certain rights if they violate the laws which govern society; however, to fully agree or disagree, would fail to take into consideration some important points. I define the "social contract" as the laws and rules that govern a society. These laws are meant to create a system that's safe, sustainable, and civilized. It's important for that the citizens within that system follow those rules. If they didn't, the system would implode, collapsing inward violently. Therefore, it makes sense to have laws and consequences for those laws that prevent that system from destabilizing. It's important for us to acknowledge that certain crimes violate the social contract more than others. The severity of the crime, in return, should be correlated to the severity of the punishment. If we took away the civil rights and the rights to benefit from labor, regardless of the severity of the crime committed, then there would be many of us without those rights. For instance, how many people have gotten a speeding ticket at some point in their lives? Most of us have. A speeding ticket is technically a violation of the social contract. If there were no speeding guidelines, then there would be many more accidents. It's important that a certain social contract exist between drivers, so that they can expect safety while driving their vehicles. However, even though speeding is a violation of the social contract, how many of us still speed on occasion? Most of us do. Yet, we all feel relatively safe while driving. As you can see, speeding doesn't dismantle the system entirely. A more severe crime, like rape, theft, or murder, would however. If all of us took whatever we wanted without paying businesses wouldn't be able to make enough money to pay their overhead expenses. In return, it becomes obvious that just because a person "knowingly commits a crime and has broken the social contract", doesn't mean we should strip their rights entirely. Furthermore, the claim generalizes the label "people". This includes all humans. Should we punish adults in the same way we punish children and teenagers? Even though we all are governed under the same guidelines, there's a reason there are different consequences based on our age. Children and adolescents don't have the same level of maturity as adults do, making the likelihood of making a mistake greater. It would be unjustifiable to punish a 15 year old who stole a car in the same way a 55 year old man would be punished. If we were to strip one's civil rights and and benefits from their labor, simply for knowingly committing a crime, there would be no incentive for them to improve. That's why it's important that people have the ability to earn back their rights after a certain time passes where no crimes have been committed. Even though stealing a car is admittedly a heinous act, would be fair to strip someone of their rights for the rest of their lives? If they cannot benefit from labor, what incentive do they have in working? If we prevented all people who committed crimes from benefiting from work, then it would be counterproductive to the very purpose of stripping their rights to begin with: to uphold and sustain a civilized system. Since the majority of us knowingly commit crimes, most of us would not be allowed to benefit from labor and our labor force would not be great enough to support the economy. However, that's not to say we shouldn't strip people of their civil rights and benefits from their labor in certain instances. If we did not have a repercussion for our action, then people would be less willing to abide by the social contract. Yet as you can see from the specific examples above, it's important that each situation be looked at uniquely. If we try and generalize that rule to "all people across all crimes", there would be many more negative than positive effects. As you can see, there are situations where stripping someone of their civil rights and benefits from labor make sense, but if we were to make this a permanent rules across all conditions and people, the very system we are attempting to strengthen would collapse.

The following was a timed essay I took on one of the Princeton practice tests. A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio. “We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.” Although it may be true that increasing the funding for the movie "Working Title" is imperative, the memo the movie producer constructed makes some assumptions and jumps to the this conclusion prematurely. Until certain issues are investigated further, it doesn't make sense to increase the funding for the movie. Firstly, just because the director lacks experience outside the realm of shooting commercials for a shampoo company, does not mean he lacks the knowledge or abilities necessary to produce a successful movie. Perhaps he is the greatest producer of all time. Perhaps he was just working for the shampoo company as a way for him temporarily meet financial obligations, but it is significantly below his level of expertise. Perhaps he was actually trained by some of the greatest movie producers in the country and is fully prepared and ready to take on the task of "Working Title". We just don't know. We don't know enough about the background of the producer to make the conclusion he's incapable. Additionally, the conclusion that because the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, the direct will shoot multiple takes without concern or the time and money being spent is unfounded. This is an example of stereotyping. It may not even be true that the advertising business is wasteful. We are just taking the movie producer's statement as fact. Without actual numbers presented, we don't know how legitimate this statement is. It would be the same as saying because West Virginia has the lowest scores on an education assessment, everyone from West Virginia is uneducated. Furthermore, the director may be the most astringently cheap director in the world! Simply because he comes from a certain group, does not mean he reflects that group. Although it could be the case that the producer's statement of the advertising business is true and the director has learned some bad habits about the way to film, it's premature to assume it is until a further investigation is had. Thirdly, the statement that the money saved from hiring inexperienced producers and directors will translate to greater expenditures in having to pay the crew and actors overtime from their inexperience is unwarranted. It could be the case that more experienced crews, although more efficient, require higher operating costs. Perhaps because they charge a higher wage, demand better actors, mandate more developed sets, etc...It could end up being much cheaper to pay overtime for the inexperienced crews inefficiency than it would be to pay for a more experienced crew. Adding on to that point, it may not even be the case they are inefficient.They could come together brilliantly as a team. Perhaps they have great leadership, Maybe there are a few people within that crew that have all the experience the world has to offer. We just don't know enough about them to conclude that they are going to fail. However, it isn't irrational for one to assume a crew with lesser experience is going to have higher operating costs than a more experienced crew in certain arenas, we just don't know enough about costs holistically to make the assumption they are altogether going to be more expensive. Lastly, the "10%" number the movie producer seems to be arbitrarily putting forth may not even have any effect. What if the crew, from their inexperience, aren't able to extract that much value from the increase in funding? What if 10% isn't enough, when it comes to a movie, to have that much of an effect? What if 10% isn't enough to take a movie from being poor or average into a "quality product". It may be true that 10% could go a long way in terms of providing the necessary resources and covering the costs to give the team exactly what it needs, but we just don't know. The cost specifics definitely need to be further investigated before we know how effective "10%" will be. Based on these reasons, the conclusion that the movie is "virtually assured to be a failure" is unjustified. Many more questions need to be answered before this conclusion is made. It would be wise for the movie producer to change his wording around and get permission to increase the funding, if that time comes. This would allow the possibility of saving money that may otherwise have no effect and giving the team a chance to display their true colors.

In 2008, more members of the U.S. population in the 45 to 54 years old age group had health insurance than in the 35 to 44 years old age group This was a problem I encountered while taking the Manhatten practice test. I've noticed I've been having a problem interpreting the language in the quantitative questions "correctly". The above statement I view as being true, based on the graph. The bar is higher for the 45 to 54 years age group than the 35 to 44 years age group. However, it is false. The reason they gave is: "For the two age groups mentioned, look at the middle graph. The year 2008 is represented by the light gray bars. This bar is higher for the 45 to 54 category than for the 35 to 44 category, so you might be tempted to conclude that there were more 45- to 54-year-olds who have health insurance than there are 35- to 44-year-olds in 2008. Watch out! This is a case in which you cannot take "percent of population" comparisons and make "number of people" inferences from them, because we don't know the total number of people in each age range. For example, there might have been 50 million 45- to 54-year-olds in 2008. According to the chart, about 84% of them had health insurance, for a possible total of 42 million insured. There might have been 55 million 35- to 44-year-olds in 2008. According to the chart, about 81% of them had health insurance, for a possible total of 44.55 million insured. The number of people insured could be greater in the group with the lower percent insured, if there are more people total in that group. Since we don't know population by age group, this statement might be false (as shown above) or might be true (with different numbers tested for the populations)." The title of the graph, the "percent of U.S. population with Health insurance by Age", to me means all the percentages are based on a constant number, that number being the total U.S. population. If there's 81% of the U.S. population (let's say 320 million) with Health Insurance, that is less than 84% of the U.S. population, so you could know that more members in the higher age group had health insurance, since both are a percentage based on a constant number (320 million, the U.S. population). The language a lot of these qualitative questions uses is subjective?

I haven't taken the GRE test yet, but my unofficial scores are around 155V and 158Q. I think improving your quantitative score is way easier than improving your verbal score. After about a week of studying, I went from a 150Q to a 158Q. My verbal score has only risen slightly, despite studying vocabulary, reading comprehension, etc...It seems like the more quantitative questions you do, the higher your score will rise. I think a 155Q is like getting about 25 out of the 40 questions correct, more on the first section than on the later. I think you should be able to bump that up to the 160's if you put in a solid amount of studying. If you're applying for top schools that have hundreds of applicants, every point counts.

After looking at the thread about practice test scores compared to actual test scores on the site, it seems as though it's typical for a person to score lower on the Powerprep tests than they would on the actual GRE. You may be the exception.

It seems like when I take these, they are very much different than the other practice tests I've taken. They are the Powerprep II tests from ETS. Firstly, they only have 5 sections instead of 6. All the other practice tests I've taken have included the experimental section as well. Secondly, they don't seem to be as adaptive to how you're doing. The test is supposed to get more difficult if you do good on the first few sections. Lastly, the first verbal section seemed much more difficult than on the other tests I've taken. The other tests I've taken I've gotten somewhere in the range of 12-18 questions correct. This one I got 8 right. It was as difficult as a "hard" 2nd verbal section in the other tests. So it doesn't seem to be as adaptive. I've been scoring in the range of 157-159 and I ended up with a 152, which has me concerned. My quantitative score was closer to what I usually get, 157-160Q and I ended up with a 158Q

This is a timed essay I took on the Powerprep practice test. Topic: A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. I disagree with the idea that a nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. Although there are some benefits to creating this requirement, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Requiring all students to learn the same national curriculum would work in a system where all students learn at the same rate; however, this is far from the truth of reality. Many students learn faster than other students. Similarly, many students learn slower than other students. If you required the slower learning students to learn the same curriculum as the faster learning students, they may not get the most out of their education. Perhaps the curriculum is too advanced, or perhaps it is not advanced enough. The curriculum imposed on a student should be positively correlated to their level of learning. Additionally, if you required all students to study the same national curriculum you would prevent the student from choosing what they wanted to study. In high school, there are usually many courses to select from. This allows a student to pick what type of classes to take based on their interests. For instance, a high school that had an automotive or construction program available would allow students who wanted to be car mechanics or construction workers get a head start. Similarly, if a student was interested in becoming a physicist, they would be able to excel by taking advanced courses in mathematics and science. Allowing a student to study what they want motivates them to learn and to take the most out of their education. Forcing a student who despises math to take a certain math course, may set them up for failure. Furthermore, not all students want to attend college after high school graduation. Some students who know they are not going to be attending college may not need to learn some of the same things other students who plan to are. For instance, requiring knowledge of geometry may be important for a student who wants to design houses, but for a student who knows they will be working on their parent's farm after they graduate, it may be become irrelevant for them to learn. Admittingly, there are instances that requiring all students to learn the same national curriculum that are beneficial. For instance, a student who is naturally gifted with a high IQ, but who lacks the motivation to excel, may choose to slack off in his studies by enrolling themselves in easier courses. Requiring that student enroll in a specific curriculum may push themselves to learn things they may not have otherwise. Or for example, a high school that forces its students to learn a unique type of curriculum may set the students up for failure since they are not learning the same things other students are. There are many students who are forced by their parents to attend a catholic school. Taking time learning about the history of Christianity could perhaps have been better spent learning about the history of colonies or civilization. Standardized the curriculum nationally would prevent some of these downsides. However these examples are the few and far between. There are many more instances that make the idea of requiring all students to study the same national curriculum more counterproductive than beneficial. In a perfect world where all students learn at the same rate. want to excel by enrolling in postgraduate education, or have identical interests it may make more sense creating this requirement. Unfortunately, this is not how we are and the idea becomes more and more insensical the longer you investigate its merits.

In a recent book, Laurence Fontaine examines two central questions concerning the rise of booksellers in the eighteenth century: was the book market controlled by a single cartel, and if so, how was this group established? Using lists of customer accounts at bookshops, Fontaine identifies the Briançonnais family as the strongest of any group of booksellers. Fontaine concedes the Briançonnais didn't have a monopoly on the book trade, as there were others in Mediterranean Europe, most notably a network of Protestant merchant-bankers, who were active in lending money and distributing books to bookshop owners. However, Fontaine builds a powerful case that the Briançonnais network was the strongest of them all. The family traded only with kin, so to increase the network, the Briançonnais merchants negotiated strategic marriages for sons and daughters, thereby building an expanding client base throughout Europe. Within the passage, select the sentence in which the author qualifies a previously made claim.

"Its asking for a formula that works for all values, so you can't always pick and choose to identify the right answer. It's possible that two expressions could be equal for specific values, but that does not mean both are correct formulas. As a speed strategy, choosing numbers can be good for the GRE - it allowed you to narrow down your choices to B or C. Now you need another approach to decide which is right. (This could be picking different numbers and seeing that only one works.)" This helps and is something I completely didn't think about. I guess I was so used to the other problems where there was only one equation that worked. I will have to be a little more careful knowing that just because the variables fit into one equation - like choice A, it doesn't mean that choice E doesn't work as well, requiring more calculations with another set of variables. I should have realized that after discovering two equations work for the numbers I came up with, to plug in new numbers and figure out which one is no longer valid.

In the figure above, if FGHJ is a rectangle, which of the following is an expression for the area of the shaded region? a b c d e If A = 4 and B = 8, then wouldn't choices B and C work? I know looking at the picture FK is longer than KJ and if FK is 4 then KJ must also equal 4, which wouldn't on the surface make sense. But to my understanding we aren't supposed to assume the shapes are drawn to scale. We can plug in values for the variables even though it doesn't appear to be drawn to scale. Unless it's mentioned explicitly or implied mathematically what the values cannot equal, we are free to use whatever? Maybe that's where I'm making the mistake because I see the 90 degree angles in the corners and then see GK emerge directly from it. I don't know. Tell me if 8 and 4 are not geometrically possible lengths. Area of the unshaded region given the values above is 1/2b x h, or 2 x 4 = 8 Area of the rectangle given the values above is a Length x Width = 4 x 8 = 32 Thus, area of the shaded region is 24. Target number is 24. B and C both come out to 24?

That makes sense.The length of RS would change the angle of WSU.

A machine works at a constant rate and can produce a bolts in 15 minutes and b bolts in c hours. Quantity A: b Quantity B: 3ac Quantity A is greater. Quantity B is greater. The two quantities are equal. The relationship cannot be determined from the information given. The following answer was provided: Plug In. If a = 5 and c = 1, then b = 20. Quantity A is greater so eliminate answers B and C. If a = 100 and c = 2, then b = 800. Quantity A is still greater. Well what if:: A = 0 B = 0 C= 1 Quantity A: B, or 0 Quantity B 3ac = 3(0)(1) = 0 So the relationship cannot be determined from the information There is nothing about the question that says A, B, or C cannot equal 0. The wording "can produce" does not necessarily mean an actual bolt has been made, it "can produce" 0 in theory.

Okay, well...for the average person, like myself, I don't use cubic roots to estimate volumes ha. I have never estimated a volume using a cubic root once in my life outside a math course. But I agree that there's an application for it..I also agree that it's testing "in between estimation" logic vs. cubic root theory, which is more pragmatic. Although however impractical the application is, i must admit it's requiring the use of a certain thought process that implies a person's ability to think logically.

Perfect. That makes sense. Where in life I will have to apply this is beyond me, but if I have to know cubic roots for the GRE so be it! It's been about 8 years since I've done this type of math, so need to touch up on basic concepts.

I am taking the test August 17th. Right now my highest scores on the practice tests have been a 155Q and a 155V. I'd like to try to get it above 160. I'd love a study partner, let me know if interested. Skyping I feel would work the best.

Yes, it was. I misread it.

Thanks. I'll start using Venn Diagrams for these types of problems since I'm not good at creating the formulas. Makes a lot more sense that way.

What is this ^ I thought it was the square root of 87 times 3? If x and y are the integers most nearly equal to and x < < y, what is the value of xy

Triangle RTV is equilateral. RS > ST Quantity A The degree measure of ∠WSU Quantity B 60 Quantity A is greater. Quantity B is greater. The two quantities are equal. The relationship cannot be determined from the information given