Predetermining the number of questions to skip

[KatharineT943]

Hi there,

Been going through my CATs and recognize that I have a timing problem for WPs and CR. I've decided that for difficult questions on these topics, I'm going to work on bailing sooner so I can spend more time on questions that are my strengths. I've read that aside from making the decision to bail, it's also helpful to determine before taking the test how many questions you plan on bailing on for each section. Right now I am thinking about 3-4, but how do I know what amount is the most optimal amount?

Thanks!

[StaceyKoprince]

Generally speaking, pretty much everyone should bail on a minimum of 4. Note that bail truly means bail from the beginning—you don't actually try this problem in the first place. You'll have other questions that you try, they don't work out, and then you have to guess in order to move on. Those ones don't count in the discussion we're having right now. (And for the try-doesn't work-bail scenario, don't count. There's nothing you can do anyway—you already tried!—so just get out and start working on something else.)

If you're going for a score of Q49+ or V 40+, I'd bail on 4 to 5.
If you're going for a score of Q40 to 48 or V 30 to 39, I'd bail on 5 to 6.
Lower than that, 6 to 7.

Also (for anyone else reading), if you find that your timing issues are mostly in one section, you can adjust the above accordingly. But pretty much everybody is going to see at least a couple of "aagh this one is terrible!" problems. Don't raise your blood pressure or use up valuable brain energy even if you do have the time. Business decision—bad ROI. Get out!

By the way, on my last real test (in January), I bailed on 8 quant questions. I went into it wanting to perform the following test: any problem that made me think "ugh this sucks" as I was reading it, I bailed. Immediately—didn't even try to make an educated guess. I picked answer B all 8. I still scored a 48. So if you find yourself having used up all your bails but one more awful one comes along, go for it. By which I mean: bail again!

[KatharineT943]

Thanks for the advice! Helpful.

I do have one concern about bailing on questions before trying them - I find that sometimes when I bail on a question before even trying to solve, it turns out that if I had spent 30-45 more seconds considering it I would have realized that I actually knew how to solve it it, and could have gotten it right.

For example, one of my weaknesses is overlapping sets, however, it's only really the more complicated questions on overlapping sets I struggle with, and the more easy overlapping sets problems I can do just fine. In a most recent practice test, I saw a question on overlapping sets, thought - bail! - and moved on. But when I was reviewing the test after, I realized if I had spent a bit more time I would have gotten it right, but instead got a 300-500 question wrong (which I understand has a greater penalty).

What's the best way to avoid instances like this, while still allowing 4-6 bail questions without wasting precious time or points?

[StaceyKoprince]

Great question. You basically need to learn better how to make that decision. Literally: go back and study when you made the decision and it turned out to be the right decision vs. when you made the decision and it turned out to be the wrong decision.

Wherever you made the right decision, chances are good that you won't want to do that kind of thing when you see it again in future. And wherever you made the wrong decision, figure out what it was about that problem that intially put you off but then it was actually fine—so that, next time, you know now to let that kind of detail put you off.

Now, you know that when it's easier Sets, you can do it. So study Sets from that point of view—what characteristics signal "I can do this one" vs. "Ugh, move on!"?