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
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
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