Subscription pricing
Im considering buying extra "newer" tests to practice on.
Input appreciated.
Thanks.
0
Im considering buying extra "newer" tests to practice on.
Input appreciated.
Thanks.
7 comments
They have those new "evaluate the argument" questions for LR.
On that note - Is this difference substantial or say, a few questions difference?
aka, should we not be taking the scores we are getting on early PT's as too representative, esp. if the RC is one of the stronger areas?
I agree with Mike Ross. LR definitely feels more nuanced. Maybe LSAC knows most people are familiar with cookie cutter types, so they try to give you flaws/weaken/strengthens that are unique and they design the trap answers so that if you misread you'll think this is a cookie cutter type but it actually isn't
I feel like the LR got more nuanced, and although the same types of cookie cutter flaws were used, they were more dressed up and required more finesse to get to. Sufficient Assumption also became less cookie cutter. Some required you to make extra inferences that the LSAT writers presume you should know
RC definitely got harder. Questions are also more nuanced and you don’t always get your “slam dunk that’s the right AC” type of choices. You may find yourself having to pick between 2
RCs are harder while LGs are "easier" because the newer games are more consistent due to the exclusion of many miscellaneous games.
It is realistic to have LGs down to -1/-0 if you study correctly (e.g. foolproof).
Introduction of comparative reading passages
I thought the RC got harder