Subscription pricing
Hi.
I took the LSAT a year ago, and to study for that I took almost all of the recent prep tests. Now with only a few weeks left I am deciding whether I should take fresh tests that are much older (like 2003) or should I retake the tests that I already took last year, since they are more recent?
With the older tests, since I've never taken them I realize I can maybe get a better idea the accuracy of my score. But they also have a disadvantage because the test has changed over the years. Since it has been a year since I've taken the more recent tests, maybe I will have forgotten most of the material and it will just be vaguely familiar to me. But still, I don't know which is better! Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks!!
0
5 comments
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=150072
@kimberlylgoldman326
So since June 2007, the format has been the same....but people say LG got a bit "easier" in the 60's and now recently getting tricky in the 70's. People say LR has stayed relatively the same, except for much trickier answer choices. Most notably, people claim RC has gotten harder over time.
ok thank you! So other than that are they basically the same? Or is there any other trend about them getting easier/harder?
Probably the main difference between "new" and "old" is the addition of comparative passages in RC. The free June 2007 is the beginning of such change. So anything PT's starting with Pt 52 (in addition to June 2007) has the comparative reading.
Sorry when I said older tests I actually meant a range of 2003-2009. Also does anyone have information about how much the test has changed/when? Maybe I could do some sort of combination of these two...