"I score on my GMATPrep between 610-640, so I'm not sure how much stock to put into the Manhattan score. I agree with other posters in regards to the insightful question explanations, but I think their scoring strategy is a bit off. Where the GMATPrep beings to level out, I find the Manhattan CAT tends to keep adjusting.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to think I'd be about to score a 750 on the GMAT, but I think there Manhattan GMAT CAT tends to score a bit higher. Has anyone else noticed this in their scores as well?"
Hey, just wanted to shoot a quick response to this post: I've definitely found something similar going on, though my score difference isn't that dramatic. GMAT Prep software sees me scoring somewhere in the high 600s (680-690) whereas I'm consistently scoring 700+ on Manhattan GMAT's software.
I LOVE ManhattanGMAT's questions and answer explanations. I'd kiss the feet of their designers and question writers. And, beyond using the GMAT OG's, I'm only really using MGMAT because I love the freedom and flexibility of their self-study package.
Nevertheless, here's something that I do notice when I review my exams: if I get 4 questions in a row wrong on either the Quant or Verbal sections, the question difficulty does not decline all that much. Strangely, I'll still get four questions in a row in what MGMAT describes as the "600-700 range" or "700-800 range" without much give. Now, for me, it seems like once per test, or once per section, I will get 3-4 difficult questions wrong. It's hard for me to imagine that on the real GMAT, the same algorithm would hold true: I recognize that difficulty changes don't come immediately, but I figured that, after getting 10% of all questions incorrect on a given section, my potential score would plummet a bit too.
Anyone from MGMAT care to reply?