<p>^
I believe this post is about Dr. Chung’s Math book…</p>
<p>EDIT: I meant to say, “This thread is about Dr. Chung’s Math book.”</p>
<p>Its about PR but your right- got completely off topic 
my bad.</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>so would u recommend PR 11 tests for all three sections?</p>
<p>@braniac: Sorry, I didn’t notice your post. Two very useful tips are the Geometric Probability and Percentage tips. Both focus on types of questions that I personally have seen on the SAT many times. These tips present you with useful methods of solving these types of problems and provide you with a variety of practice problems that broaden your understanding of the concepts.</p>
<p>Writing & Math - yes
Reading SC-yes
Reading passages- absolutely not
11PT is practice, PR Manual is explanation with practice problems and hit parade vocab</p>
<p>Im am not even 5% of the way through the book. But my thoughts so far…</p>
<p>This book gives tips. These tips are explained in the examples they give (which are around 1-5 questions). Then they give SAT-type questions right after to see if what you learned is getting inside your head. These questions are very intimidating at first, but Dr Chung’s examples answer these types of questions. You just have to be smart and know when to use his examples given. If you know it, then bam you get it.</p>
<p>So far, I like it.</p>
<p>Studious: Thanks for the response.
I’m still debating if I want to get this book because of the mixed reviews, but I’m trying to think, if not Dr. Chung’s what should I get seeing as I’ve already gone through Gruber’s :/</p>
<p>Get Dr Chung. Im not through even 2% of the book, and I like it so far.</p>
<p>Follow my thread, and I will post constant updates about my thoughts. Then I will write a whole REVIEW on the book. Honest review. Not a fraud one many think because of the high ratings on Amazon.</p>
<p>I really like Chung’s, as do most people who buy it. I think xiggi is in the minority here. Even so, his opinion is valuable and should be heard. I don’t know what to tell you; there aren’t many other options. I guess go through the entire Blue Book and review?</p>
<p>I second Studious. Other then the blue book, you have no other option. I don’t particularly like Barrons or PR for the SAT. But that’s a subjective view.</p>
<p>Nothingto, thanks for the input. Right now I’m leaning towards getting it but I’ll keep an eye on your thread</p>
<p>I saw my first typo. </p>
<p>“e” was a typo. It was supposed to be “the”.</p>
<p>One of the explanation was vague. If someone can explain this question, then I would be glad…</p>
<p>Tip 2, SAT Practice question 2.</p>
<p>I can deal with typos. And I dont have the book but if you could post the question and solution then maybe I can try.</p>
<p>It’s a geometric question, relating to “Similarity Ratio”. So I cant really post the question.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with the explanation given to the question. It was straight on, However, Dr Chung did something in the solution which I am clueless about, as to why he used it. </p>
<p>I will try to ask StudiousMaximus, and post back.</p>
<p>Well maybe that was just his way of doing something and if you can solve the problem and other types of the same problem by doing it a slightly different way and skipping that step then you should be fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is nothing magical about the solution. Problems like this are an example of the limitations of this type of books. The problem is too complicated by one and a half. While it is OK for a question to test the knowledge of similar triangles, a question that requires this type of manipulation will never appear on the SAT. Chung should have used TWO triangles (what ETS might do) instead of developing such an asinine problem … to show off. </p>
<p>Fwiw, he is basing his solution of the ratio of the side that is 2/2/3 to establish the ratio of the areas as the cubes of 7/5/3, namely 49,25,9 (if we follow the triangles’ order correctly.) Then, he takes the middle area as the difference of the two smallest triangles to come up with 25 - 9 or 16. Since this area is not 16 but 48, it means that the real area is 3 times larger. This gives the final answer of 3 times 49 or 147. </p>
<p>It is not a really hard problem, but one that is NOT a SAT level problem.</p>
<p>^I believe we both just gave him the same solution at the same time (mine was over personal message).</p>
<p>Xiggi, I thought you returned the book! Anyway, I see what you mean with Chung’s needless over-complication. Although, if you learn to solve this problem, wouldn’t you, by default, know how to solve a simpler such problem? This is why I think harder-than-SAT-level questions like this aren’t necessarily a bad thing to study.</p>
<p>SM, check this out:</p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Dr. John Chung’s SAT Math (9781439234976): John Chung: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Dr-John-Chungs-SAT-Math/dp/1439234973#reader_1439234973]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Dr-John-Chungs-SAT-Math/dp/1439234973#reader_1439234973)</p>
<p>No book needed. Just “Search Inside This Book.” :)</p>
<p>If you search hard enough, you can soon gather all 50 tips. ;)</p>
<p>Thanks, xiggi/studious. I was stumped for around 10 minutes (literally) having no clue whatsoever on how do even start since There was no two figures, but he put 3 traingles. Then I checked the solution, and I freaked out when he added 7/5/3…</p>
<p>Now I actually finally understood after looking at the figure for 5 minutes… But why the hell would he be so subtle in this? If only I knew that he had 3 DIFFERENT triangles. I can’t afford to study a diagram/figure for so long to find out only a small portion of the question… </p>
<p>But I guess move on to the next question. I agree it’s not SAT level difficulty, its much harder then the SAT level questions.</p>