Solving Analogy from the GRE: Tips & Tricks

[Moonbear]

Well I disagree with that. I think decorating your speech with colorful words brings a lecture, or a conversation, or a scientific discussion alive. Moonbear, I think your writing is filled with clever words and clever sentence structures and it makes your posts really fun to read and makes me more motivated to engage you in the topic. Take for example the phrase "liberal sprinkling" or the word "pompous" in your quote above. I also remember you used the word "sleuthing" in a way I really liked in some post.

I don't think any of those are uncommon words, though. Yes, I try to vary my sentence structure, and I do think that's important to keeping both writing and speech interesting rather than dry and boring. A test that focused more on grammar rather than vocabulary would be far more useful, in my opinion. It's rare that I would use a word that someone with an eighth grade education wouldn't understand (unless I'm specifically using scientific terminology, of course). But, I do use more complex and varied sentence structures, as do many others here.

Has the GRE begun to include a writing sample yet? I'd personally weigh that more heavily than analogies. The other traditional part of the verbal section that IS useful is the reading comprehension section. That's a more essential skill to succeed with one's education.

 

[ehrenfest]

Has the GRE begun to include a writing sample yet? I'd personally weigh that more heavily than analogies. The other traditional part of the verbal section that IS useful is the reading comprehension section. That's a more essential skill to succeed with one's education.

Yes they do have a writing sample and I concur that the reading comprehension and the writing sample are more important than the analogies, vocab, antonyms section. The problem with the writing sample is that grading is of course highly subjective. Most eight graders I know don't know the definition of "pompous". Furthermore, why would you WANT to restrict your vocabulary to an eighth level? High school is an intricate part of becoming an intelligent adult and it introduces people to new ideas and new words that accompany these ideas and are intricately related to them. When you talk to a professor with the language of an eighth grader, you lose the ability to say certain things in nicely-packaged words or phrases that he should know. Instead you would have to explain a complicated idea in elementary terms which is just a waste of time.

I hope this won't get off-topic if I give an example but anyway suppose you want to have a discussion about people taking justice into their own hands. Using the word "vigilantism" makes the conversation much more efficient. Suppose you want to talk about giving jobs to your relatives. "nepotism" would make that discussion much better.

I think you were exaggerating when you said you try to only use eighth grad vocab.

 

[cristo]

When you talk to a professor with the language of an eighth grader, you lose the ability to say certain things in nicely-packaged words or phrases that he should know. Instead you would have to explain a complicated idea in elementary terms which is just a waste of time.

But as Moonbear says, technical discussions require the use of technical language. This is very different to an everyday conversation.

Using the word "vigilantism" makes the conversation much more efficient.

Is that even a word? I personally would never use it, since it sounds clumsy. Still, I would use the word vigilante, but I would presume that most 8th graders knew the meaning of the word (students in 8th grade are about 14 aren't they?)

 

[Moonbear]

Most eight graders I know don't know the definition of "pompous".

I think most do. It doesn't take much education to know how to call someone a "pompous a**."

Furthermore, why would you WANT to restrict your vocabulary to an eighth level?

So people understand what I'm saying. I prefer to communicate clearly than sound like an intellectual snob.

Instead you would have to explain a complicated idea in elementary terms which is just a waste of time.

Not at all. If you can't explain it in elementary terms, you don't understand it very well yourself.

I hope this won't get off-topic if I give an example but anyway suppose you want to have a discussion about people taking justice into their own hands. Using the word "vigilantism" makes the conversation much more efficient. Suppose you want to talk about giving jobs to your relatives. "nepotism" would make that discussion much better.

And those are words eighth graders would know (and yes to cristo, that would be about 14 years old). Or, at least, they would know vigilante. That's a word often tossed around in the news. Back when I was in 8th grade, or thereabout, there was quite a bit of news about "vigilante justice" in NYC as people were getting fed up with crime on the subways and taking matters into their own hands. Actually, we were being taught words like "loquacious" in 8th grade, but not too many actually learned those words then.

I think you were exaggerating when you said you try to only use eighth grad vocab.

Not at all. Unless we're playing word games here, look at my posts and see if you find terms beyond the 8th grade level other than when specifically using scientific terminology.

 

[LowlyPion]

A larger vocabulary is not exactly a huge requirement to clear thinking or communication. I suppose that we could all get by with some kind of reduced vocabulary set (using the analogy to reduced instruction set computers), but it certainly does polish up and compact communication, if you can employ nuanced phrasing, rather than grunting 15 times instead of using the word "fifteen".

I think successful communication is not just to transfer meaning, it's also to transfer understanding. Anything one can do to streamline that process and deliver understanding, seems like a good thing.

 

[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.