Probably ACER practice exams 2 and 3. But answers such as these are always, by necessity, given on the basis of retrospective UMAT experience. To be honest, none of us know what ACER will present us with tomorrow.
Hi, I literally just posted a medentry/nie vs real umat today comparison on the other thread so I'm just going to copy and paste that here and hope it is helpful for you (and isn't violating any policies about copy/pasting).
Section 3 was arguably quite standard stuff, but not in comparison to medentry. Most of the patterns themselves were not challenging/quite simple but there were some that were DIFFERENT from medentry/NIE, in that medentry/NIE's patterns are quite repetitive and normal, with increased difficulty, whereas this UMAT clearly had more abstract patterns which were actually quite simple if you had kept an open mind. I suspect that preparation in this case may have actually disadvantaged a few people because it could have hindered them from recognizing a pattern if they kept looking for something they were familiar with when in fact a brand new approach (albeit quite doable) was required from the candidate.
Section 1 I personally found 'different' from medentry again, and for me it was on the much harder side rather than easier, as compared to the exams. I can't comment much on this because I feel like I bombed out in this section. A useful comment to make though is that the passages were definitely shorter than the long medentry ones, and the difficulty instead lay in actually answering the question rather than what is seen on Medentry, where you simply scan through the text to find your answer and simply make sure you are not using any fallacious judgement. ACER placed a heavier focus on problem solving than I anticipated, but this is commonly seen to be the case throughout the years so nothing new here.
Section 2 was much easier than it was made out to be (in comparison to last year's, which a lot of people said was overly ambiguous and hard to interpret in terms of what was happening in the passage) in my opinion, although it was slightly vague at times. There was little to no emphasis on vocabulary, and its quite likely that ACER is moving away from forcing students to distinguish between similar words and is instead including questions where candidates must recognize the intentions of the characters themselves (there were quite a few questions on the INTENTIONS of characters and why they had said a particular thing). In this respect, the real UMAT was definitely different in nature (section 2 wise) to medentry, where often it asks for the tone and gives you very hard words to pick between. That being said, I can't comment much on the difficulty again because in about 10 cases I could only narrow it down to 2 options and then had to pick from there. In terms of newly styled questions, there was nothing new. There were true/false tables like last year, and about 5-7 cartoon questions, which was predictable.