Why would I/we enter the couples match?

Generally, because you are married or close enough. Any two people can enter the NRMP match as a couple, which will tie your residencies together by whatever rubric you choose. This is usually done in order to end up in the same geographic location, which can be defined as tightly (Manhattan) or as loosely (the Midwest) as suits your needs and circumstances:

On the whole, couples do relatively well in the match (91.6% of partners match together and at least one partner matched in 94.6% in 2012 according to the NRMP), barely different from that of singletons (95%). That said, your advisor will recommend that you increase the number of programs you apply and interview at accordingly. The more difficult the field you enter, the harder it is to couples match (per conventional wisdom). Double pediatrics is easier than pediatrics/radiology, which in turn is easier than radiology/dermatology.

The overall process itself is simple: you check an extra box on ERAS to inform programs and check another box (and pay an extra $15) for the NRMP to register, then submit your ROL (rank order list) together. The lists will link up, and you both must specify every single combination you’d like in order (up to 300 combinations). You enter it exactly as you want it. If you want prestige over closeness for your dream program, you can do that (though your relationship might not survive it!).

“No match” is also an option for the couples ROL, a potentially useful backup so that one partner’s success isn’t jeopardized if the second partner simply cannot match. The second person would then hopefully be able to SOAP somewhere nearby, but this may prove difficult as the location of the successful partner’s match would still be unknown. Regardless, this may be especially helpful when one applicant is reaching and the couple would rather try to SOAP for one spot in desperation instead of two.

Special Cases

There is no couples match for the early match specialties, although, if applicable, all preliminary years are part of the NRMP and eligible for the couples match. That means that if one or more partners is entering ophthalmology or urology, there is no way to guarantee being together during residency, end stop. There can be informal agreements and all sorts of hand-shaking, but no formal system will help you or preserve your sanity. Historically, ENT, neurosurgery, and pediatric neurology were also early match, but that is no longer the case.

All residencies requiring a preliminary year can also be tough. These include radiology, ophthalmology, radiation oncology, dermatology, as well as some neurology, rehab, and anesthesia. There are some programs in these fields that are categorical (meaning that they include the internship year), in which case you will match normally. But anyone entering an advanced field will couples match that advanced field with their partner’s program. The prelim year is not and cannot be part of the couples match itself (except for early match advanced fields). This means you cannot guarantee being in the same location for internship (but you can maximize your chances by attempting to go to locales or programs with large or multiple preliminary programs or be willing to enter a preliminary surgery year). If you want to ensure being together during intern year, then prepare for a large number of preliminary and transitional interviews and increased application/interview costs.

How to approach the process as a couple

It is advisable to let programs know you are couples matching.  This can be done on ERAS directly. You can also touch on this in your personal statement if it flows. This encourages PDs in different specialties at the same institution to talk and can result in interviews for one applicant that they may not have otherwise received.

You will bring it up briefly during every interview (you’d be surprised how often programs can forget).

It is generally easier to focus on areas that have a sufficient number of options to make matching likely. This in part varies on which fields you will pursue, but larger cities like NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc. tend to work well for increasing the number of permutations. It’s also generally easy to get a larger number of interviews in your geographical region.

For couples with one partner in the Early Match, it is worth it to keep in contact with programs once the spouse knows where they have matched in order to stress that you are specifically vying for a particular area/program.

It is okay to politely inquire as to application status when one partner has received interviews from an institution but the other has not heard back, especially in areas with only one institution. Some fields send invitations significantly earlier than others. Most programs understand that one spouse will have little interest in attending an interview only to find out their significant other has been rejected. It’s a wasted interview from both sides of the table.

Always be polite, but don’t be too hesitant to contact when it will change your plans. If a program isn’t responsive or accommodating at this stage in a game, that’s something to keep in mind. I was surprised at how accommodating programs were when contacted, even very early in the season.

Most couples prefer to travel together when possible in order to explore new cities, save on travel costs, etc. The success for this is highly variable and depends largely on both programs’ schedules and the pushiness of applicants in attempting to ascertain interviews and reschedule when possible. Programs generally are sympathetic to the plight of the couple.

Finally, the NRMP provides some excellent information and sample couples match rank-order lists (ROL).

The Littmann Cardiology III.

Oh, you actually want to read a treatise on stethoscopes? Well then don’t let me stop you!

A reasonably good stethoscope is the one (and I mean one) and only piece of medical equipment that every medical student should purchase. You will use it during the preclinical years for training and OSCEs, and starting third year you’ll use it almost every day (possibly for your entire career). Stethoscopes aren’t like ophthalmoscopes; you really need to have your own, and it is absolutely worth it to have one that works well. But there are an overwhelming number of models at a huge variety of price points.

You say the word stethoscope, and the response you’re most likely to hear is Littmann. But even then there are a lot of choices. My recommendation for most health care professionals is to buy the Littmann Cardiology III.

From first hand experience, there really is a difference between cheap and expensive stethoscopes, period (even to some extent within the Littmann line of products). I actually used and continue to use an old Littmann Lightweight that was my mother’s. When it went missing briefly, I used a pink cheapo one that my wife had upgraded from. In both cases, I thought I was hearing the right things. I could hear a heartbeat. I could hear breathing. However, there’s a significant difference between hearing the heart and breath sounds and being able to hear diagnostic sounds. I thought residents were lying about hearing faint murmurs or bibasilar crackles. ((Sometimes they were, but that’s beside the point.)) That’s because even with my old Littman, the amplification and frequency response simply wasn’t that good. Everything was muffled. Moreover, the tubes on cheap ‘scopes are so poorly insulated that any slight movement (even chest movement, patient hair, etc) is enough to obfuscate any actual physiologic noise.

My wife has the Cardiology III (a fun present to get from relatives, as it costs around $150), and if I were in the market for a new stethoscope, it is the model I would buy without question (update: my vintage stethoscope broke during intern year; I replaced it with the Cards III). When I first borrowed it my mind was essentially blown. I had no idea what I’d been missing. The Cardiology III strikes the right balance of features and price for essentially any physician. ((If you don’t want/need a pediatric head or a dedicated bell and do need to look awesome, then perhaps the Master Cardiology is for you (see the comments below.) ))

• Tunable heads mean that you can assess both high and low frequency sounds by altering pressure. Once you practice with a tunable diaphragm, it’s actually a great feature as it allows you to rapidly get a full sonic picture of a location in space without having to futz with the stethoscope
• Double (both adult and pediatric) diaphragms (the peds one can be switched to a standalone bell as well, which can be nice if you want to ignore the tunable feature). Some schools require you to have a double-headed model so that you can “switch” modes when taking standardized exams, and this is the model in the cardiology series that is double-headed. This also means that no matter what you do later, this one will get the job done.
• Excellent (I mean excellent) external noise attenuation. You hear what you want to hear.
• The only con is that is a bit on the heavy side. The up-side of this con is that you can easily use the head to test reflexes.

Someone may come to your school to try to sell you a digital/electronic stethoscope (like this Thinklabs one several of my classmates were conned into buying). Outside of increased amplification for the hearing impaired, most digital stethoscopes (while kinda cool) are stupid for a variety of reasons: bulky, most can’t fold properly for a pocket nor easily wear around your neck, need for batteries, etc. I have yet to see a compelling reason to buy one unless you are an educator, as the second-listener feature is great in a classroom setting.

Some people hate Littmann’s “new” tunable stethoscopes. And while essentially everyone I’ve ever worked with carries a Littman, there are some folks (especially old school docs) who swear by a couple of other models, particularly the Harvey Elite, which is even pricier but is universally acclaimed by its users.

In addition to a good stethoscope itself (and certainly the cheaper/lighter Littmann Classic II gets the job done), many of my classmates and fellow residents also swore/swear by their holster, though I myself just bear with the neck strain.

Do I need to buy an otoscope/ophthalmoscope?
And if I do, which one should I get?

These are two of the first questions I used to hear from every MS0/MS1 during welcome weekend, white coat ceremony, or orientation.

Medically, the answer for most students is “no.” Most hospitals and clinics have Welch Allyn diagnostic sets attached the walls or units hidden away in the supply room on the floors. You will play with them once during first year and probably never again. However, many schools nonetheless “require” you to buy one. My own school did that, and in hindsight, it was a soft requirement, and I probably could have avoided the purchase. That said, there are several reasons to invest in a set:

1. Your school demands you buy a “diagnostic set,” and you feel awkward not playing by the rules
2. The hospital you train at or plan to work at is ill-equipped and does not have access to these tools on a regular basis
3. You are interested in a career in neurology or ophthalmology
4. You want to do family medicine and actually see inside the eye during your fundoscopic exam instead of pretending
5. You are interested in community outreach, rural medicine, or medical mission-work

There are a lot of super cheap sets available online, but if you ever plan on actually using them, then it’s probably worth upgrading slightly. The cheap ones are extremely heavy and optically useless. Either the light is too bright or too dim and non-adjustable. Not infrequently, the optic disc remains blurry no matter how you tweak, because the manufacturing process doesn’t calibrate these devices accurately. Most otoscopes work okay (ears are easy), but you’ll almost always buy it as part of a set anyway.

Neurologists and ophthalmologists are the specialists that most routinely do fundoscopic exams. General practitioners document that they do but frequently don’t, and when they do they typically do not get diagnostic exams. Ophthalmologists actually rarely use a direct ophthalmoscope, as in the office setting they have bigger and better toys, so even for them once again it boils down to your desired clinical context.  Any physician who wants to do community outreach (e.g. glaucoma screenings at a local church) or medical missions outside of a routine clinic or hospital setting can find a use for these tools. Personally, the most use my set got was in a small village in the Dominican Republic.

So which model should I buy?

If you’re looking for a reasonable, affordable, small and light general purpose set, look no further than the Riester Ri-Mini. This is the set I purchased as an MS1, and it strikes a balance of price and quality. They’re well-made, durable, and actually work.  They use AA batteries, so they’re small and can fit in your white coat easily (unlike their full-size C-battery-sipping cousins). For a pocket set, there’s nothing better.

The best  “reasonable” full size optionsis the Welch Allyn Diagnostic Set, which is what you’ll find in just about every hospital setting. It’s big, it’s good, it’ll last forever, and it’s expensive.

If you want the Rolls-Royce of sets, then you’re forced to splurge on the holy Panoptic. To me, everything else in between just doesn’t seem worth it (if you’re really going to shell out $500+ for a Welch Allyn diagnostic set, why not upgrade all the way?). For most people, the Panoptic is a massive waste of money. Its main benefit is that you can do a much more complete fundoscopic exam without dilating the eye. As a consequence, you can accurately assess the optic disc and easily check for papilledema.  Consequently, for neurologists, the Panoptic can be extremely helpful in checking for signs of increased intracranial pressure. For ophthalmologists or family docs, the Panoptic is helpful for community outreach work and school screening, as it allows you to obtain a fast reliable exam without eye drops/dilation.

So for most people, a huge waste of money.

For people who want to do community outreach, medical mission-work, etc—it’s seriously something to consider. If you want to be a GP/PCP and actually do a real fundoscopic exam, then a Panoptic head is probably the most straightforward way to do so in a routine clinical setting. You don’t even have to know how to use one properly; it’s just that much easier.

After taking Step 1, I imagine most students realize how overextended they became trying to get through multiple books during Step studying. In the end, it was the questions that mattered. It’s always the questions.  So, here’s my list of free Step 2 CK questions (updated June 2019):

• The NBME has its free Step 2 CK practice test in Fred (v2) software, as well as some good materials to familiarize yourself with Step 2 CS. You can find my written explanations for the most recent sets here.
• Lecturio has made their 1000 question Step 2 qbank completely free (after registering for a free account). If you’re interested in buying their video lecture/qbank product, you can get a 25% discount with code hpG6C.
• MedBullets has a 1000+ question robust Step 2 qbank with tutor mode, percentage of peers who answer correctly, detailed explanations, etc. They also have another 199 for Step 3.
• Osmosis is a completely free big (>5000 question) qbank and video collection organized by section. No personal profiles, exam creation, metrics or other typical paid-product goodies, but there’s a lot of content.
• ExamGuru has a free trial with 10 questions apiece from each of their 6 shelf exam products and USMLE 2 CK (for a total of 70 questions). Coupon code BW15 gets you 15%  off any package you might want to buy.
• For every Step exam, Kaplan lets you try one 48-question section for free after signing up.
• USMLE Consult has the usual tiny trial for free (30 questions)
• Learntheheart.com has 50 cardiology USMLE 2 CK questions with plans to add more.
• MedMaster (makers of the “made ridiculously simple” series) has a USMLE Step 2 question bank. Like their Step 1 qbank, it’s content review, not Step practice. But it’s short, high-yield, and to the point. It’s not a bad quick companion for the shelf exams as well, especially at the beginning of your rotations. It also includes a section for Step 2 CS full of the cartoons and mnemonics the series is known for.

Not a lot of resources, free or otherwise, are dedicated for Step 2 (especially when compared with its significantly more important sibling). If you take Step 2 CK in the summer after third year, a question bank (USMLEWorld of course) and Crush Step 2 / Step 2 Secrets (same book in different formats, both a very quick and superficial treatment and extremely quick read) are likely enough. For the gunner, the possible addition of a more “comprehensive” text: First Aid for the USMLE Step 2 CK (which is not as good as FA Step 1 but retains the same format you either loved or hated), Step-Up to USMLE Step 2 CK (previously the worst of the big three but recently updated and improved), or Master the Boards USMLE Step 2 CK (more readable but less complete, particularly good for “next best step” questions). Step-Up to Medicine (if you have it from your medicine clerkship) is still an excellent review for medicine (the bulk of the test) if it’s been a while.

Preparing for your shelf exams is 75% of the battle. The longer you wait, the more you forget, and the harder the test is. Contrary to what you might hear, Step 2 isn’t actually much easier than Step 1; it’s just that you’ve done this rodeo before. If you really want to do well, prepare for and take it right after clerkships.

If you’re attempting to cram for Step 2 in a month or less, I recommend forgoing books altogether (except as references PRN) and relying exclusively on USMLEWorld. Go through it once, flag all questions you get wrong or guess on, then do all marked questions again. Only if you can finish that is it worth reading a book cover to cover. More book-reading does not equal more knowledge when it comes to board review, and you’ve already spent a year reading review books for this exam via your shelf studying.

Looking for more info on the third year shelf exams? That would be here.
Worried about Step 2 CS? Then feel free to peruse this post.

Okay, so penlights (pen lights?) are not the sexiest topic within medicine. However, I struggled with them a lot as a medical student. As in, I never seemed to have one when I needed one. And, when I did have one, more than once it had died when I finally tried to save the day on rounds.

I originally used this style: decent light source, reusable, available from my school bookstore. The problem is they’re activated like a pen and are easy to turn on accidentally, so they die constantly. They eat up batteries. And then I lost one. And another.

I then used these cheap disposable penlights. They’re great for several reasons: super cheap (as a cheap $1 each on Amazon) and you can only shine on purpose, so they won’t die accidentally. The problem is that they do die randomly. And the lightsource can be so weak that it won’t work in bright room. The pupil gauge is nice though.

Entering intern year I was in need of a new pen light, as my wife and I had somehow lost all of ours in the move. I looked around and splurged (relatively) on the Streamlight Stylus, which I love. It’s around $10-15 depending on the day, but it’s super bright, lasts forever (like 60 hours on one set of batteries), and is as slim as a narrow pen, so it fits easily in the pen divider of a white coat with room for another pen, so I actually use it all the time. It’s reusable, as it takes 3 AAAA batteries. That’s right. AAAA. Where do you find AAAA batteries you ask (should you rack up 60 hours of pupil gazing)? Inside of the 9V batteries you used to stick your tongue on (and online, of course). Downsides? Extremely bright, so be careful of how you use it. Also, its long length may cause it to stick out of your white coat depending on the size of the pockets.

If you want the Rolls Royce, the Foursevens Preon 2 has multiple light modes (dim for carefree direct pupil, bright for room flooding) and is generally well loved as the most versatile LED penlight around (downsides: bit wider; click button means you can leave it on by accident and waste the battery). In between is the new NexTorch Dr. K3, which costs around 24 but gives you an awesome medical grade light with Goldilocks brightness and excellent build quality.

I’ve spent the majority of my “adult” life as a standardized test taker. As a resident physician, my skills are still developing. But as a student, as an aficionado of the multiple choice question, I’ve already reached (and probably lost) my peak abilities.

I am asked frequently about my thoughts on the Step exams, especially the USMLE Step 1. It is after all the single most important determining factor in what specialty a medical student can reasonably hope to enter and probably the easiest and most-used exclusion criteria used by program directors everywhere (with the likely addition of graduating year and US Allopathic schooling). I can hear your thoughts. They ask, how should I prepare? My answer is simple:

USMLE World.

Theoretically, any good question bank should do. In practice, UW is the best.

More so than First Aid, more so than Goljan, and absolutely more so than Doctors in Training, I believe the USMLE World question bank is far and away the most critical component of Step preparation (with a solid helping of Wikipedia). Here is why:

When you learn a fact in a book, you can congratulate yourself on adding a virtual index card into the Rolodex of your brain. However, you have not indexed this fact in a retrievable way. It isn’t necessary usable in a test-taking context. This is one of two reasons why many people who know things still do poorly on tests. They can talk about it, but they can’t apply it. You may know the right buzzwords but never seen them described in an exam question. When you do questions, you both learn facts and learn them in context. You learn them in a question format, instead of learning them in a paragraph and then struggling to integrate and apply it to a question. Your time is valuable, wouldn’t you rather kill two birds with one stone?

UW questions have extensive explanations and are essentially a textbook page unto themselves. You can learn what you need to know from UW. The only downside to UW is that is not “organized” like a book for those students without sufficient background in need of a stronger foundation (this is what a quick read-through of First Aid as fast as possible at the very beginning of your study process will give you: a reminder of what you’ve learned, a horrifying glimpse of how much you do not know). This can be is a strength for two reasons: 1) it’s [slightly] less boring 2) the USMLE is not divided into sections. You never know on what topic the next question will be. 3) Patchy random exposure to topics isn’t exactly “spaced repetition,” but it does work along those lines.

So read through First Aid in a week or less. Just get through it. Bring up all the hidden junk you memorized long ago, then go straight to questions. Questions, questions, questions. Use books only to memorize tables and diagrams or flesh out your knowledge when you find yourself stumped by concepts or totally out of your element. Many students spread themselves thin trying to get through multiple sources at the expense of not doing enough questions—this is a mistake. Focus and depth trump breadth, end stop. Go through UW and mark/flag all the questions you get wrong and all the questions you guess on. Then do the marked ones a second time. Unless you have a significant problem finishing exams on time, I believe in “tutor” mode: this mode allows you to learn the correct answer and read the explanation immediately after each question. The goal is here is to learn first (and simulate the test second). If you do NBME practice tests closer to test day, those will obviously be done in timed mode. Ultimately, this is a matter of preference.

UW also goes to the trouble of explaining not only why the right answer is right but also why the wrong answers are wrong. This is crucial. This means you learn how to answer similar questions correctly again as well as when the wrong choices would be correct. Several related facts in one caffeine-riddled swoop. These explanations are on the whole excellent. These exams no longer include the classic buzzwords found in review books; they describe those buzzwords and key phrases. UW employs this nuance well.

The second major reason people struggle with MCQ tests is the inability to “get in the head” of the question writer. There are individuals who seem to test better than they should. You could ask them to explain why they choose the correct answer and they typically cannot explain themselves. Or, if they know why, it often is not entirely based on their book-knowledge. They’re able to narrow it down to those same two choices as the next guy, but they pick the right one more regularly. These people are natural test-takers. Step 1 is a MCQ test, but its style is not identical to that of the SAT or MCAT. You need to do Step questions to know how to do Step questions. It’s like any other skill. Hone it.

Because you wouldn’t learn to play guitar by practicing the flute, would you? Sure, the flute is a musical instrument: your dexterity would improve, your knowledge of tempo, rhythm, and music itself would develop. But if you picked up a guitar, you would still suck. Don’t spend 10 hours a day for six weeks learning the flute, then pick up a guitar and hammer on a few chords for a week and call yourself a guitarist. Just play the damn guitar. Skip the middle man.

Here is my compilation of free USMLE questions, which can be helpful before you’re ready to shell out for a definitive resource. Here are some things to keep in mind while studying. And some more thoughts about how I read Step questions.

Because Pathology is a cumulative all-encompassing subject, it makes sense that preparing for the Step 1—reading the First Aid—would be good preparation for Pathology Shelf. And while that would work, I don’t think that’s the best use of your time if you only have a few days to try to cram it all in. Pathology is cumulative, but the types of questions the National Board tends to ask demand a specific subset of knowledge: histology, gene mutations, responsible enzymes—these are the core of the pathology. Furthermore, reading a book (be it the First Aid, Goljan’s Rapid Review, or Robbins) is also a dangerous plan if you’re pressed for time. A) You probably can’t get through it. B) Knowing facts and applying them toward answering a question are separate steps. It’s not uncommon to need to see a question about a concept in order to the “bind” that knowledge appropriately.

A good Qbank (like USMLE World) works, but I think the very best way to review pathology is the Robbins and Cotran Review of Pathology, the question-book-companion of the big Robbins that many/most schools use. Benefits of this book:

• Complete, system-organized review of pathology that covers all the important topics and factoids
• Shelf-style questions and focus
• Contains clear and concise but complete explanations—which is key. You’ll get a lot of questions wrong, but this review teaches you the salient distinctions quickly without being cryptic when you do.
• Because it’s organized by system, you can tease apart related conditions and presentations. If you just do a blanket review, it’s hard to do this. Even if you use a Qbank instead, I would still recommend you do a run-through of the pathology questions by system first.

The link above is to the 3rd edition. I used a copy of the 2nd edition I bought at a local Half Price Books, and it certainly didn’t feel out of date. It’s also cheaper online. I think either one would work fine, though I’m sure there have been improvements made in the intervening five years. It’s a high quality resource; I only found two typos/mis-keyed answers in the entire book.

The point is this: there is so much material on Shelf and Step exams that literally anything you learn could be useful. Time and brain space are the limiting factors, so what you need is an efficient study aid. For the NBME Pathology Shelf, I had four days off to study. The Robbins question book is roughly 400 pages. I was able to do 100 pages a day and then follow it up with a few tables in the First Aid (important cytokines, for example), and that was 100% sufficient for Shelf purposes.

Sometimes when you do questions without having read a text first, the whole experience is just frustrating. Studying for the shelf is inherently painful, but this book really does it right.

For around $35 a pop, your medical school can pay the NBME to let you and your classmates take the Mini Step 1 (“Comprehensive Basic Science Examination”), a 200 question multi-subject basic science test. The grading and its relationship to Step 1, according to the NBME:

The subject examination score is [was originally] scaled to a mean of 70 and a standard deviation of 8. A CBSE score of 70 is approximately equivalent to a score of 200 on the United States Medical Licensing Examination® (USMLE®) Step 1. The vast majority of scores range from 45 to 95, and although the scores have the “look and feel” of percent-correct scores, they are not…For this examination, the SEM [standard error of measurement] is approximately 3 points.

However, according the sample score report, the following is the scoring breakdown using the scores from 2008-11 (mean of 64; std 10 on the CBSE score scale):

So it’s hard. Without doing any Step preparation (outside of attending to the usual coursework), I felt absolutely confident on only a handful of questions.

That said, and perhaps it’s just an extra year of medical school talking, the questions seem more doable and slightly less minutia-dependent than those found on the NBME Shelf subject exams. On this run, for example, the demanded anatomy is fairly basic—reserved for the highest yield topics like major artery and nerve distributions & common injuries and syndromes—especially compared to the anatomy shelf I “took” last year. While I assuredly failed this exam with soaring colors, it seems slightly less intimidating then before (edit: I did not fail. Goes to show that taking a lot of board-style questions in a row feels worse than it actually is). Still frightening, quiver-in-your-boots hard, but potentially doable. For most topics, it’s breadth, not depth. Only for key topics (basic metabolism, common bacterial and viral pathogens, big-name diseases like CF, CAD, MI, DM, Crohn’s, Addison’s, etc) is minute detail demanded.

For the question style itself, I was surprised overall with the frequency of first-order questions and the amount of useless writing. If you read Kaplan style questions too much, you see a lot of long vignettes with this scenario:

Long-winded clinical presentation of  Strep throat (without identification). The question might ask, what should the patient’s physician ask before administering the therapy of choice? As we use Penicillin for Strep, we need to ask about a Penicillin allergy.

The ID of the bug is a first-order question. The drug of choice is a second-order question. The common adverse side effect of the drug of choice is yet a third-order question. On the Mini Step, most questions were actually first-order questions. Third order was much much rarer. Most frequently—and annoyingly—the long vignettes end with a diagnosis or ID, thereby negating the need to read the vignette at all! My advice: if you’re the type to run short on time, read the last sentence or two before reading the whole vignette. My other piece of advice is that you shouldn’t let Kaplan or other sample tests scare the crap out of you. They pick the most ridiculous questions they can find in order to frighten you into buying their product.