<p>How do the various practice tests compare to the real ACT. From the PR, Barrons, ARCO, and Kaplan, I would like some information in regards to the score representation.</p>
<p>With Real ACT tests as the standard, Barrons is more difficult and Princeton Review is about the same. At least from what I've seen.</p>
<p>The Science secton of Barron's is impossible</p>
<p>I've also heard the science section of Barron's being impossible. I had Barron's, Kaplan, PR, and the Real ACT Guide when I studied, but I used the REAL ACT Guide thoroughly and barely touched the others (sifted through PR a bit for the math). My practice scores when I took the past tests from the Real ACT Guide were EXACTLY the same as my test results. Definitely recommend Real & PR. Thought Kaplan was a tad easy (from what I saw).</p>
<p>I thought the science section of Kaplan was much harder than the real test (my experience). I got a 22 science on Kaplan, but a 30 science on the real ACTs. Princeton review is pretty good, very accurate. As for the REAL ACT book, it's as accurate as you can get, but however, I find that the math on the REAL ACT book is easier than what's actually on the ACT.
The thing is, whenever I do practice tests I'm totally not focused, especially for the reading. So at home I won't actually "focus" on what i'm reading and end up with a not-so-good reading score (25ish or so). Then on the real test, I'll have lots of adrenaline and pressure so I whip through the passages really focused and end up with a 31.
However, I find SAT practice tests to be more simliar to the real SAT test than the ACT practice tests to the real ACTs. I think i'ts because the SAT as more questions, therefore giving a more accurate result of one's performance. Whereas on the ACT, there are only 40 questions for the science part... meaning if there is one science section you did not understand and got all those wrong, then according to the curve on the act, it can screw you over.</p>