GAMSAT Test Preparation Forum Index GAMSAT Test Preparation
For GAMSAT Candidates discuss the GAMSAT syllabus, form GAMSAT study groups, discuss GAMSAT study resources, review of GAMSAT preparation material, discuss anything that will help achieve a better GAMSAT score.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   SmartFeedSmartFeed   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

what was your worst question?

Post new topic   Reply to topic    GAMSAT Test Preparation Forum Index -> GAMSAT Discussion
Author Message

Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 108
Location: Melbourne

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:17 pm    Post subject: what was your worst question? Reply with quote

We all know there's a raft of nasty, sneaky and sometimes pointless questions on the GAMSAT exam.

Taking votes NOW for the worst. Awards will be given by section.

At the starting plate we have:

Section 1:
The eskimo heat spaghetti map
ps. to the social 'scientist' trying to make a science out of people eating stuff, you forgot to add eskimo farts to the calorie heat counts, and with their blubber diets we're talking serious air.

Section 2:
Everyone seems to say it looked ok which means noones getting a good mark.

Section 3:
The bifucklo[1.1.1]alkanes because of that ambiguous little example molecule and its pissant little bridges. If they'd used a bigger molecule you could have worked the rule out more easily.

Any other question where you had to try to visually twist then ram an electophile into any type of upside down, left-to-right mirror imaged carbon chain pissed me off too i.e about a quarter of the paper.

Lastly, I'd like to pass on my thanks to the physics questions - they're always nice. The bird question at the end looked kind of cute too for anyone that actually made it there.
Back to top

Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah that stupid flowchart for section 1. The rest was ok, but really, there was heaps of long passages that were designed to be time wasters. Last year they had things like quotes and short poems. This year the length was beyond ridiculous.

Section 3 was bad from page one. Cant say i really liked a single question, and i graduated from medical science Evil or Very Mad
Back to top

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 134
Location: Queensland

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Section 1 - the flow chart was horrible but equally as bad was the stupid passage on complimentary medicine that drove me up the bend with all the answers being in BIG words. It annoyed me.

Section 3 - I hated all the organic chem, expecially the ring structures with the bridges - how pathetic. I didn't actually study any of that so crashed and burned. In fact i guessed any question that had anything to do with organic chem or subjects i didn't study like gamma rays for instance and the lenses question. The question about fluroabsorbance was also a little too much for me - no idea. The easiest was definitely the endocrinology one with the negative feedback of cortisol. But also one of the physics one with horizontal force was OK too - I agree the bird question was not too hard. The stupid genetics question also irritated me as it conflicted with my prior knowledge of peanut allergy and genetics.

GRRRR - over it now - just have to wait and see what sort of fail grade i got!
Back to top

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Section 1:

Eskimo Graph was alright (but made me crave an eskimo pie)
-there were a couple of crappy literary questions, with really ambiguous words. I hated English at school.

Section 2: Not too bad, but knowing me I did shit

Section 3: I actually liked the organic chem. Once i fiddled around with the question, the answer seemed to leap of the page.
I guess it helps that i tutor in chem! Even the physics (which i hate) were alright, but i guessed at a couple (including the bird one)

Overall, everything is studied was ON the exam, and everything i didnt study WASN'T on. That's what I call efficient studying
Back to top

Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
Location: perth, WA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the eskimo question, i loved it

why did everyone else hate it

oh maybe because i am a computer programmer
Back to top

Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Qld

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:43 pm    Post subject: Seatbely physics Reply with quote

Hi, what answer did everyone get for the seatbelt Q?

I have consulted with a USA university physics group and have gotten conflicting answers: that it decelerates at a greater rate than the car (bse its deceleration is in addition to the vehicles) and that it decelerates at a lesser rate than the car (the rapid rate of deceleration of the car being a BAD thing).

What did you say?..... Shocked
Back to top

Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 108
Location: Melbourne

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seatbelts decelerate at a slightly lower rate than cars in crashes. Think of it this way - the car could have stopped, yet you and the seatbelt could still be moving a bit (even though they don't stretch much).
Back to top

Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 303
Location: Gold Coast, AUS

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That fricken eskimo crap. That question sent me into an epileptic fit just looking at it. I mean, eventually it was quite straightforward, but you had to get past the initial heart-attack when you first see the thing.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    GAMSAT Test Preparation Forum Index -> GAMSAT Discussion All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Anti Bot Question MOD - phpBB MOD against Spam Bots
Blocked registrations / posts: 198146 / 0