Prop Trainee tests of verbal reasoning

[grantx]

For those looking to enter graduate training schemes of arcades, prop houses, etc, it seems, inter alia,"verbal reasoning" is tested.

To be honest, I thought, wtf is that. It's basically what was previously known as "comprehension. I searched Google and came up with the following site (University of Kent). Try the test and be honest with your score. And no, the missus (or son or daughter)can't help. No cheating (stop sniggering at back).

I scored 23 which is above average for Kent graduates who took the test. Could mean I'm pretty good or Kent graduates are retards.

But I reckon there is flaw in the test. Each question has three possible solutions – True (or a reasonable conclusion); Untrue (not a reasonable conclusion); Insufficient information (to decide whether True or Untrue).

Conclusions drawn from statements are True, Not True, reasonable or unreasonable. I can’t see how a statement can be both true and reasonable, for example – it’s one or the other. Reasonable implies acceptance based on likelihood or belief, not Fact. We don’t say, “it’s a reasonable fact, but we do say ”it’s a reasonable judgement” (or conclusion). Or perhaps this is what they were testing - bstards.

Grant.

 

[Yuppie]

Well...

Well Grant, for the sake of my brain (and morale ) I hope you are truly above average... I managed to just squeeze my score into the "below the typical score of Kent graduates who have taken the test" category...

I am genuinely pleased with this though. I reckon this kind of thing can be improved upon. The reason I think this is that as the test went on (okay, it wasn't very long, but even so) I felt myself losing focus...

I'm going to hunt around a bit for more such tests. I do know that there are some companies out there that you can access tests such as these for a fee. May be worth it. Although one may not be able to improve their natural abilities at answering this kind of test, I'm sure various small factors like being relaxed, knowing the frame your mind should be in, timing it well (I did it in just over half the time so that probably affected the score - I like to think ), etc, could each have a small impact - and perhaps a bigger impact overall...

Thank you for pointing this out Grant...

Magnus

 

[fifty2aces]

A company called SHL do the tests for a few of the investment banks - I think there are some practice tests on their site.

 

[grantx]

Magnus,

Assuming tests will be in the same format, it would be far easier to read the question first. Then one simply concentrates on the relevant text rather than trying to relate all the text to a specific point (the question).

Glad there weren't any maths tests. I wouldn't even bother attempting these.

Grant.

 

[Yuppie]

Yeah...

Yeah, I thought the same thing after the first couple of questions, find out what's required first, then search for the answer. This may have been better in this test as the time was more than enough...

Grant, either you're very good at maths... or very bad...


Magnus

 

[grantx]

Magnus,

Adequate at maths, at best. Certainly couldn't do multiplication and division of long numbers in my head, as required.

One key to this test is to read very carefully, looking for words/phrases which imply ambiguity or uncertainty - "could", "possibly", "it has been suggested", "estimated", etc. Where found, the context, statement or phrase is "Not true".

Also look for tricks re quantity, eg "majority, "minority", "49%" or less (implies minority and therefore a statement purporting to be "fact" derived from these figures is "Not true"), 51% (majority, the reverse of minority). This is perhaps my area of contention with the test where a possible answer is (to the effect) that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. This seems to assume there may be other evidence to consider but which isn't presented in the passage. This is rubbish; the point is comprehension of the passage, not specualtion of an infinite number of unseen variables.End of rant.

Grant.