Solving Analogy from the GRE: Tips & Tricks

[Jimmy Snyder]

I personally think the English language is too redundant.

The redundancy is in part due to the successful invasion of England by the Normans in 1066. It's a headache for people trying to learn the language. However, redundancy is a separate matter from a large vocabulary. A craftsman has a lot of tools and knows when to use each one of them.

 

[Kurdt]

But then again each tool has a specific job. One definition for one thing is all it takes.

 

[LowlyPion]

But that of course is the beauty of the language.

A woodworker may have differently beveled gougers, differently shaped chip knives, different width chisels and differently contoured shavers, - and surely not all of them are required to fashion a block of wood. A subset of tools may do the job.

But then again, using the right tool, not only may do the job more easily, but may achieve a better result in finish.

 

[dst]

I always have to bring up this superb article by my main man Orwell on the subject of pretentious and useless vocabulary -

http://www.protrainco.com/essays/politicsandenglishlang.htm

 

[lisab]

I don't know who said it first..."There are no synonyms in the English language."

Each word has finely nuanced shades of meaning.

With respect to analogies in standardized tests - it's not just the meaning of the words (which are somewhat obscure), but the words' perceived relationship that are being measured by the test.

 

[D H]

I personally think the English language is too redundant. The reason I believe Germany produces so many good thinkers is because the language is concise and precise and having that drilled into you from birth is a good thing. These are the definitions of things, this is how you structure a sentence. What more do you need?

So, the correct answer is

LOQUACIOUS:SUCCINCT::ENGLISH:GERMAN

 

[ehrenfest]

Okay I am starting to see people's point about pretentious diction being useless. The one place I would say they are not useful is if you are an avid reader and especially one of historical literature. I like reading Dickens each of whose books which contains a MASSIVE amalgam of words like those you see on the GRE. To get the full force of his books, you really need to know some of those words. Of course, you could just look up the words as you go along but that really interrupts the flow of the book.

So, I think I am still going to study up on vocab for the General GRE basically because I just don't know who will read my grad school app and how they will assess my scores. I am guessing that a lot of the people who read grad school apps have little idea what is actually on a current GRE verbal test or how to interpret the verbal score fairly.

But when I walk out of the test, I think I will just be satisfied with the vocabulary I have for the rest of my life. My brain holds only a finite amount of information and I can only add a finite amount of information to it per day and it is just not worth it wasted that on vocab.

 

[siddharth]

I am sooo happy that I'm done with the GRE. A completely useless test, IMHO.

It was never a test of knowledge so much as a test of how well you can identify the tricks the test writers throw at you. This is why I didn't study for the GRE. Studying doesn't help.

I have to disagree. Like most standardized tests, the trick is in doing lots of example questions, previous tests, etc. That helps you spot the tricks that are generally used.

 

[Moonbear]

I have to disagree. Like most standardized tests, the trick is in doing lots of example questions, previous tests, etc. That helps you spot the tricks that are generally used.

They're all the same tricks. If you've studied for one standardized test, you've studied for them all. More practicing than studying I suppose. Oh, y'know, your right, it's been so long ago I forgot that I took the GRE after taking MCATs (last minute decision to switch from plans to go to med school to attend grad school), so I'd already taken and prepped for standardized tests. There was no need to study specifically for the GRE, but I suppose I did already have all the standardized test trickery down pat by then.

That's what those review books are good for. You don't need the whole course, but just read the books, and learn the tricks in them.

Keep in mind, your taking this test with people with things like philosophy majors and history majors who can't even do the basic algebra on the math section, and may not have learned that vocabulary any more than you have (science majors often have an advantage on vocabulary anyway...you've learned so many technical terms that the word roots will start being familiar). When I took it, there were people sitting in the hallway while waiting for the exam room to open up, still furiously studying, talking about how it was their third time they were taking it, and all panicked about how hard it was. I was just sitting there with my pencils and ID, waiting, mostly bored. I had scanned through a prep book at some point and decided it was the same ol' same ol' so didn't do any more studying. It was quite easy. I don't recall my scores anymore, and they probably aren't comparable to current versions anyway, but did well enough that my GRE scores would not have held me back from getting into any grad school of my choice (my grades were the limiting factor then), and qualified me for some fellowships.

So, yeah, I do agree with you that taking enough time to learn the most common tricks is worthwhile. I just wouldn't put an extraordinary amount of time into memorizing vocabulary words. I mean, if you have nothing better to do, there's no harm in learning more vocabulary, but there's still no guarantee you're learning the right set of words, and most of them are ones you've already learned to take the SATs, so should come back to memory if you see them again.