I didn't find it ambiguous in the least. There were subtle clues in each
series of questions & answers that either pointed you to the right answer or
at least eliminated all of the wrong answers (i.e. an answer that refers to
EIGRP with an area ID - instead of an (AS) is obviously wrong). I do agree
about the fill in the blank though, nowhere on the test instructions do they
tell you what the "proper syntax" should be. I thought it was a well
written test that insures that you know your stuff or you will not pass - as
for the spelling errors, I only noticed one.
Louie
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Warren Shubin
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 8:59 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: ACRC test is poorly written
This test totally smokes choad. I have yet to see a more poorly written
Sylvan test, even from Microsoft. There were more than a number of questions
that were totally ambiguous, or the grammar/spelling were foul. Also, there
is also a lot of confusion over whether to type the full command verbatim,
or drop a consanant here or there, etc. due to the Cert Guide not following
the guidelines of the exam.
I used both of the Chappel books to study. Will give it another shot this
weekend I think.
W.
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
