I am about 6 weeks through the online self study guide and have taken my first practice CAT exam. Although i didn't do GREAT, i felt that i did well enough to get into the high 600s.
I am doing really well on the verbal, but I am struggling a little bit with the quantitative. I feel like i know the tools need to solve the problems, but its recognizing which tools to use that i am struggling with. Once i see the answer, I find myself sayin "ohhh." Kind of like if i knew which method to use, then i would be ok.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improving my recognition skills?
GMAT Forum
6 postsPage 1 of 1
- EFoster
- tomrose
techniques for matching problems with methods
This challenge that you are facing is not trivial. Many people struggle with this issue, and it should not be taken lightly. In fact, many people, including myself, sometimes have trouble matching strategies with challenges in the real world as well. There is one thing that makes GMAT problems more approachable than real life problems:
The great majority of GMAT problems have common characteristics. For instance there are only a handful of equations needed to solve most problems dealing with work and rates. (e.g. Distance = Rate * Time, and Work = Rate * Time). Practice in the official guide is usually a great way to build up your repertoire of methods for solving the standard cannon of problems. Eventually, you will have seen the main types or problems and you will have developed a system for matching those problems with effective solution methods.
If that is not enough, I would suggest that you keep a record of your completed problems and look over it periodically. You will be surprised by how quickly you can review old work. You should review problems that you answered correctly as well as those that you answered incorrectly.
Here is another idea. When you see a problem, ask yourself which ManhattanGMAT guide you would find it in. After that, ask yourself what section of that guide you would find the problem in. If you can categorize problems like this, then you should be very close to a solution technique that will work for you.
T
The great majority of GMAT problems have common characteristics. For instance there are only a handful of equations needed to solve most problems dealing with work and rates. (e.g. Distance = Rate * Time, and Work = Rate * Time). Practice in the official guide is usually a great way to build up your repertoire of methods for solving the standard cannon of problems. Eventually, you will have seen the main types or problems and you will have developed a system for matching those problems with effective solution methods.
If that is not enough, I would suggest that you keep a record of your completed problems and look over it periodically. You will be surprised by how quickly you can review old work. You should review problems that you answered correctly as well as those that you answered incorrectly.
Here is another idea. When you see a problem, ask yourself which ManhattanGMAT guide you would find it in. After that, ask yourself what section of that guide you would find the problem in. If you can categorize problems like this, then you should be very close to a solution technique that will work for you.
T
- StaceyKoprince
- ManhattanGMAT Staff
- Posts: 9361
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: Montreal
I love the idea of trying to classify a problem by Strategy Guide and chapter - that's a great exercise. I'd even take it a step further, where applicable: which technique in that chapter is applicable to this problem, and why? (Lots of the chapters have multiple techniques.)
And here's the key: when you're studying a problem, after you've tried it, ask yourself, "How should I have known that this was this type of problem, and that it required this technique to solve?" You'd be amazed at how systematic things are if you really dig in there (it is a standardized test, after all!). There are only so many ways they can ask you about consecutive integers without using the words "consecutive integers." There are a limited number of ways, in general, that they ask us anything, so you need to catalogue those ways and start thinking explicitly: how would someone know how to categorize this one? What are the key words here? What are the triggers that let me say, "oh, this is a number properties, positive/negative, pure theory, data sufficiency problem!"?
You already know how to distinguish a DS problem from a PS. You just need to dig a little deeper to be able to recognize even more.
Another thing that can aid you in this: for OG, the problem sets listed for every chapter, and for MGMAT CATs, the category label for each problem you're given. After you've completed, say, the NP book, you might go back during one study session and say, okay, I'm going to scan 20 problems (that I've already done) from the divisibility and primes problem set, and I'm going to group any problems that are similar - from just one part or one sentence to most or all of the problem. Then I'm going to articulate (aloud is best!) exactly what these things share, why they are similar, and how I should know in future if I see new problems that fall into these same categories.
I'll get you started. These two problems from divis & primes are very similar: #Q39 (from the quantitative supplement) and #153 (from OG11). These two problems are from the very first lesson of the course. The first one is much easier than the second, but they share some very fundamental parts. The question is the same and the way in which each statement functions is the same. The second, harder problem also requires you to know some additional math in order to solve, but just knowing how to do the first one might be enough for you to get rid of 2 or 3 answer choices on the second one, even if the second one is too hard for you to do fully. Go check them out. :)
And here's the key: when you're studying a problem, after you've tried it, ask yourself, "How should I have known that this was this type of problem, and that it required this technique to solve?" You'd be amazed at how systematic things are if you really dig in there (it is a standardized test, after all!). There are only so many ways they can ask you about consecutive integers without using the words "consecutive integers." There are a limited number of ways, in general, that they ask us anything, so you need to catalogue those ways and start thinking explicitly: how would someone know how to categorize this one? What are the key words here? What are the triggers that let me say, "oh, this is a number properties, positive/negative, pure theory, data sufficiency problem!"?
You already know how to distinguish a DS problem from a PS. You just need to dig a little deeper to be able to recognize even more.
Another thing that can aid you in this: for OG, the problem sets listed for every chapter, and for MGMAT CATs, the category label for each problem you're given. After you've completed, say, the NP book, you might go back during one study session and say, okay, I'm going to scan 20 problems (that I've already done) from the divisibility and primes problem set, and I'm going to group any problems that are similar - from just one part or one sentence to most or all of the problem. Then I'm going to articulate (aloud is best!) exactly what these things share, why they are similar, and how I should know in future if I see new problems that fall into these same categories.
I'll get you started. These two problems from divis & primes are very similar: #Q39 (from the quantitative supplement) and #153 (from OG11). These two problems are from the very first lesson of the course. The first one is much easier than the second, but they share some very fundamental parts. The question is the same and the way in which each statement functions is the same. The second, harder problem also requires you to know some additional math in order to solve, but just knowing how to do the first one might be enough for you to get rid of 2 or 3 answer choices on the second one, even if the second one is too hard for you to do fully. Go check them out. :)
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
- StaceyKoprince
- ManhattanGMAT Staff
- Posts: 9361
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: Montreal
Yep, assuming they didn't change the numbering in a later printing or something! One asks about "p" and one asks about "k" - right?
Both ultimately ask the same question: is the number we're talking about prime or not prime? (Did you get that both were asking about prime?)
One of the statements for each one offers a piece of information that works for a very large pool of numbers, some of which are prime, some of which are not prime. That's why that statement is insufficient.
One of the statements for each one offers a small range of possibilities for the number in question, and every single one of those possibilities is not prime. That's why that statement is sufficient.
And that's how these two problems are similar - the "bones" of the two problems are pretty much the same.
Both ultimately ask the same question: is the number we're talking about prime or not prime? (Did you get that both were asking about prime?)
One of the statements for each one offers a piece of information that works for a very large pool of numbers, some of which are prime, some of which are not prime. That's why that statement is insufficient.
One of the statements for each one offers a small range of possibilities for the number in question, and every single one of those possibilities is not prime. That's why that statement is sufficient.
And that's how these two problems are similar - the "bones" of the two problems are pretty much the same.
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
6 posts Page 1 of 1