AAMC Sample Test Chm/Phys q39

Post Reply
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:14 pm

AAMC Sample Test Chm/Phys q39

Post by vgp1993 » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:56 am

I understand the part in the explanation about 6 membered rings being more stable than 4, but aside from that, I'm not sure how I should have approached that question or what I should take away from it.

Any help would be appreciated!

Also, are the score estimates that I got from the Next Step excel spreadsheet and the difficulty of this test considered to be relatively indicative of peoples' actual performance on test day and the difficulty of the real test? I know it can't be said with certainty, but what I found online is that the sample is thought to be a little easier.

Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:42 pm

Re: AAMC Sample Test Chm/Phys q39

Post by NS_Tutor_Alexandra » Sun May 06, 2018 8:21 pm

Hi vgp1993,

For this question, you will need to use your knowledge of organic chemistry reactions. In this case, an esterification reaction is occurring. Standard esterification reactions involve a carboxylic acid and an alcohol group reacting to become an ester functional group. Because mevalonate has a carboxylic acid and alcohol functional group, an esterification reaction would be likely to occur when forming the ring structure, making A a more likely answer than B.

For the accuracy of the sample exam score predictor, I would say that it gives you a pretty solid guide for what score range you might be in on test day. Of the couple dozen students that I have used this score predictor with, it has been fairly accurate (with a couple of outliers in either direction). However, I would take the score predictor with a grain of salt because it is not an official resource endorsed by the AAMC. Also, the style of the MCAT exam can change a bit with each administration. Personally, my exam felt very similar to AAMC 1, but based on the feedback I have heard from my students and other tutors, the exam can vary in style and difficulty.

Happy Studying! :D

Post Reply