<p>I'm taking the Math Level 2 test this Saturday and I was wondering about the accuracy of the following in relation to the actual test:</p>
<p>-Princeton Review
-McGraw-Hill
-SparkNotes</p>
<p>I also have Barron's, but I already know that it is significantly harder than the real thing. For those of you who have used the sources I listed above and received good scores, how accurate would you say their practice tests are to the real thing? I have older versions of the books (2007-2008 edition for PR and 2006 for McGraw-Hill), but I checked with a friend and the questions are mostly the same. Thanks for any input!</p>
<p>Sparknotes isn’t very accurate. In each of the five tests they have there are at least a few errors each. I think Test 4 even has a bad answer key. It’s still good for getting the problems into your head though and looking over the Qs you got wrong.</p>
<p>^Thanks! Would you say that they are easier than the real thing, or harder? Or is it simply a matter of errors? I know that the biology tests on Sparknotes had a few errors, and I got lower scores on that in comparison to the real test. Is this the same for math?</p>
<p>When I took a CB Guide in Math practice test, the questions were pretty similar to those of a Princeton Review test I took just the day before. I would think PR is pretty close in difficulty. I’ve nearly taken all 9 tests of the McGraw-Hill books and I think they might be a bit easier than the real exam. I got a 740 on a McGraw Hill test but only a 700 on the CB test. </p>
<p>I’ve heard Sparknotes is sort of accurate, besides the errors they might have.</p>