Subscription pricing
As I am spending most of my time working on recent PTs for the December test, I have been solving some of old LR questions as well (I would consider PT 1-30 old).
After working on both, I think a conspicuous difference between old and newer ones is that old LR questions are not as tightly worded as new ones. I feel like old ones are cruder while newer ones are more refined in terms of their writing styles.
Assuming there are differences, I don't think they are about different flaws or different assumptions but more about different writing styles. I don't know if this is just me but I definitely spend more time reading/understanding old LR questions' stimuli than those of newer ones.
Do you guys think that there are any differences between old LR questions and newer ones? I would love to hear your opinions about this :D Thank you!
0
3 comments
So much this! Really reinforces the importance of knowing what you're looking for before heading into the question choices.
@cjones76927 Yup! I definitely agree with you that those differences are not a waste. Thank you so much for your response :)
I would agree with you. When I attend BR calls there seems to be a general agreement about this as well. The new tests seem to have a more crisp writing style, but I think they also sometimes have better trap answers.
I recently took PT 45 when I was primarily taking PT 60+ and I saw a huge difference in the writing styles. I had to reread many of the stimulus to understand what they were saying.
Despite the differences in writing styles I don't think older PTs are a waste. They are still testing the same question types. You still have to be able to ID the flaw, find the assumption, etc.