5 comments

  • Monday, May 15 2017

    Thank you, Everyone!

    0
  • Thursday, Apr 27 2017

    @gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:

    @dantlee14842 said:

    I'm not sure how useful the RC from those tests are (just because they don't include the comparative section that every LSAT since 2007 has), but the LG and LR are definitely worth doing, especially the LG.

    The past few LSATs have all had curveball LGs that don't fall into the normal sequencing/grouping/in-out categories. I think the old preptests are particularly useful for practicing those kinds of unusual games.

    Oh yes! The old games are a must do! I didn't realize how much doing the old games (PTs 1-35) had helped me until I started encountering some of the newer odd ball games.

    I also think the old PTs are great for RC as well. You're completely right that there are no comparative reading passages, but overall, I still think they are very useful as not much has changed in how they structure the passages.

    Comparative passages are handled and solved exactly the same as normal passages. You should still use 1-35 as a way to build the skills needed to solve RC effectively. This is where you will focus on notation strategies, timing, reading quickly enough, etc. I wouldn't write them off just because they aren't the same thing - still incredibly useful for certain tasks.

    0
  • Thursday, Apr 27 2017

    @dantlee14842 said:

    I'm not sure how useful the RC from those tests are (just because they don't include the comparative section that every LSAT since 2007 has), but the LG and LR are definitely worth doing, especially the LG.

    The past few LSATs have all had curveball LGs that don't fall into the normal sequencing/grouping/in-out categories. I think the old preptests are particularly useful for practicing those kinds of unusual games.

    Oh yes! The old games are a must do! I didn't realize how much doing the old games (PTs 1-35) had helped me until I started encountering some of the newer odd ball games.

    I also think the old PTs are great for RC as well. You're completely right that there are no comparative reading passages, but overall, I still think they are very useful as not much has changed in how they structure the passages.

    0
  • Wednesday, Apr 26 2017

    I'm not sure how useful the RC from those tests are (just because they don't include the comparative section that every LSAT since 2007 has), but the LG and LR are definitely worth doing, especially the LG.

    The past few LSATs have all had curveball LGs that don't fall into the normal sequencing/grouping/in-out categories. I think the old preptests are particularly useful for practicing those kinds of unusual games.

    1
  • Tuesday, Apr 25 2017

    Yes, the earlier tests are great for drilling/learning on. This way you will have plenty of tests to take as full-timed PTs when you are ready. Generally people use PTs 1-35 for drilling and then 36-80 for full-timed exams.

    4

Confirm action

Are you sure?