<p>I was reading through it the other day. For those of you who used it, was it good? I mean, I felt like an idiot while reading it. I noticed that it simplifies it way too much. I even remember reading this in Digestion?: "The food that comes out of the stomch is a pile of sticky mush. This mush is called chyme."
Did anyone else get that feeling or am I just over analyzing?</p>
<p>chyme is a simple thing. It is stomach mush. I think it gives u adequate info on the topics it does cover, but does not cover numerous things.</p>
<p>i loved tht book. I took the december SAT II BIo...i read tht whole book for a week b4 the tests....did bboth practice questions night before test....and the test was such a breeze...u have no idea...several almost xact questions came up such as the one in the book regarding what would cause infertility...</p>
<p>so would you say that it's better than Barron's?</p>
<p>PR is really good. Also used it for December and thought test was a breeze. I used Barron's as well with it, but thought it was WAY TOO DEEP and had lots of stuff you will never see.</p>
<p>I highly suggest PR. I take IB biology, which prolongs the coursework over two years, so a bunch of the stuff on the test i hadn't even learned yet. but i used PR and ended up getting a 780. Plus, a couple of the practice questions from the book were actually ON THE SAT II TEST!<br>
you might want to consider, however, that i used the PR in conjunction with my AP biology text book.</p>
<p>As a warning, I found that the scale they had for approximating your score on the practice tests to be WAY off.</p>
<p>yeah i thought PR was excellent. there was practically nothing on the actual test that it didn't cover, and after reading through the whole book and taking 1 practice test the night before the test, i got a 750. the explanations may have been a bit simple, but definetly not vague. overall, its method of explaining everything proved quite effective.</p>
<p>Yeah, it's a great book. It really only covers what you need for the test, so you don't need something overly detailed. No worries.</p>
<p>just got my score by studying PR boo0k...770 in the bag w00t</p>
<p>Is there only one edition of the PR book that you guys are talking about? I have the 2003-2004 edition.</p>
<p>I think PR is awesome exactly because it will call Chyme "mushy stuff." You're probably overanalyzing since obviously you've learned something from the offbeat way it spells out info right? If you get a question on Chyme, you'll be all over it :P</p>
<p>if you put it that way then, yes, It does have a nice way to simplify information.
P.S. Chyme was just something that stood out at the time; the whole book is like that.</p>
<p>PR is really good. I saw some of the same questions on the actual test =] </p>
<p>Does anyone else think Kaplan is a little bit off on the practice tests?</p>
<p>I haven't tried Kaplan (yet) but alot of people tell me that it doesn't refect the actual test's difficulty.
There is this one pook, peterson's test prep, or soemthing like that, that really sucks. Nearly half the questions are not even in the syllabus.</p>