Preface: I'm looking for an opinion, defiantly not seeking to undermine the quality of any prep material or anything.
I just took an MGMAT CAT and scored as I would expect on the Quant and SC part of the exam. However I scored significantly under my typical average in CR and scored below my average in the reading comprehension. I did not use MGMAT's guides for either the CR or the RC (because I found the Veritas RC and the Powerscore CR to be better), but did for SC and Quant.
I've done the entire OG and Verbal and the percentage correct on the last 30 questions on each was approximately 95%. I've done all the questions in the Veritas and the percentage is similar (about 92%). So I am wondering if either the OG (even the higher number questions) are significantly easier than what is currently tested on the GMAT, and MGMAT reflect the current difficulty, or if the MGMAT logic is a little off of what is provided in the OG, and possibly the test in general.
I found in reviewing my answers that some of the solutions logic did not seem to me to be very GMAT-like. For example there was a weaken question where the correct answer attacked the validity of one of the premises which is something I don't recall seeing in the OG or the Verbal. In addition the logic type questions in the RC (inference) seems to make more of a "leap" than the OG does.
Anyone else experience this or have any opinion on the matter?
I just took an MGMAT CAT and scored as I would expect on the Quant and SC part of the exam. However I scored significantly under my typical average in CR and scored below my average in the reading comprehension. I did not use MGMAT's guides for either the CR or the RC (because I found the Veritas RC and the Powerscore CR to be better), but did for SC and Quant.
I've done the entire OG and Verbal and the percentage correct on the last 30 questions on each was approximately 95%. I've done all the questions in the Veritas and the percentage is similar (about 92%). So I am wondering if either the OG (even the higher number questions) are significantly easier than what is currently tested on the GMAT, and MGMAT reflect the current difficulty, or if the MGMAT logic is a little off of what is provided in the OG, and possibly the test in general.
I found in reviewing my answers that some of the solutions logic did not seem to me to be very GMAT-like. For example there was a weaken question where the correct answer attacked the validity of one of the premises which is something I don't recall seeing in the OG or the Verbal. In addition the logic type questions in the RC (inference) seems to make more of a "leap" than the OG does.
Anyone else experience this or have any opinion on the matter?
