Hey guys,
I like the topic - you know, one of the things we teach as part of our Critical Reasoning curriculum is the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient". For example, could you logically say that:
In order to get into Harvard Business School, one must score above 500 on the GMAT. Brian scored 560 on the GMAT, so therefore Brian must have gotten into HBS.
Of course not, right? Scoring above 500 is
necessary as a requirement for getting into HBS, but it's not
sufficient. When drawing conclusions on the GMAT, you can't mistake "necessary" for "sufficient", but many questions will include the opportunity for you to make that mistake.
Well, pursuant to this topic, one thing I've seen a ton of in these forums and from students over the years is a similar mistake that what is
necessary is
sufficient. In order to succeed on the GMAT, it is necessary to be comfortable with all of the basic math and verbal skills, but that is far from sufficient!
But what I've seen is this progression:
1) Student takes an initial practice test and posts a modest score
2) Student studies a few books and begins to feel pretty comfortable with basic skills
3) Student uses flashcards and other drills to memorize more idioms and formulas
4) Student takes another practice test and doesn't improve much at all
5) Student becomes frustrated and discouraged, posts on BTG a list of books used and practice tests taken with scores that are all within a range of about 50 points
You've all seen this before here, right?
I think one of the biggest culprits here is the mistaken belief that what is necessary - step 2 of the above, and to a much lesser extent step 3 - is sufficient. And when that doesn't play out as expected, students unravel and become disillusioned. But here's the thing -
the GMAT is not a content-based exam! It's a reasoning test. It tests your ability to analyze and solve problems, not to recite what you know. And that's unlike most tests that you've taken in your life, so it's easy to become frustrated when your common study habits don't work like they did in high school and college.
When you assume that the necessary knowledge you've gained is sufficient, it's pretty easy even to score lower on the test than before you started studying. At least with an open mind you were thinking a lot more than just rote-reacting. And thinking is the name of the game on this test. To really succeed, it's also necessary to:
-Study by analyzing the questions and answer choices and think about why they're phrased the way they are, and how they could be tweaked to elicit different answers.
-Ask yourself why certain rules that you've learned or memorized hold true - the GMAT loves to ask questions that force you to reverse-engineer a concept that you already know from the top down.
-Pay attention to the mistakes that you commonly make, and find ways to become aware of them so that you can correct them.
A lot of the benefit to be gained from studying for this analytical reasoning test comes from analyzing your study results. For a little more background on that, you may want to check out this article I wrote yesterday:
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2011/01 ... -strategy/.
Most importantly, make sure that you're not relying solely on certain necessary study habits as though they're sufficient. Analyze the "why" behind your results, behind the questions, and behind the concepts, and you'll develop that analytical reasoning ability that the GMAT is truly testing.
I took only verbal part from Official GMAT test later and the result was 25. 
