@ said:

You're likely to get a lot of differing views to this question. But to put my bottom line up front: yes, I think you are missing out by not seeing any PTs in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. If you're aiming for a score in the mid-160s, I would argue that you absolutely need exposure to the more recent tests, though that doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams.

I've taken close to 20 practice tests ranging from PT 36 to PT 87, and also took the actual LSAT in both September and November (i.e. yesterday). So take my advice for what you think it's worth.

Games: First, the LG substitution and rule equivalence questions are introduced somewhere in the 60s. You're practically guaranteed to encounter this question on the real test, it's quite common these days. Not having practiced this kind of question often could cost you a question or two on test day. That said, they also tend to be the curve-breaker questions. Even JY says that unless you're very good at LG (and shooting for a high score), you should strongly consider skipping the rule equivalence questions. Second, although they didn't show up on the last three LSATs, the "miscellaneous games" are increasingly common. These games don't qualify as grouping, in/out, or sequencing. You'll see a few examples in the 30s-50s, but not as many as on the more recent PTs.

LR: I agree with JY's analysis here, which is that at their core, all LR questions are testing the same core concepts no matter how old. At a fundamental level, if you're solid on your logic and follow the 7Sage method of diagraming arguments and identifying assumptions, you're in good shape. That said, I believe JY has said that the newer LR questions seem to ask questions in a slightly different way. I totally agree with him, but it's hard for me to put my finger on the precise differences. There generally seems to be fewer questions that make use of conditional logic and more arguments that involve contrived situations and scenarios. I don't think it's fair to call the newer questions more difficult, but they do require you to quickly ID assumptions to strengthen/weaken, identify the NA/SA, or resolve the paradox (RRE). I also think the argument part questions have become much more difficult on the very recent exams. It's no longer as simple as identifying a premise or conclusion, but in some cases explaining how the premise supports the conclusion or determining whether a premise receives any support from elsewhere in the argument.

Reading Comp: The general consensus is that the reading comp sections have become more difficult in recent years. I agree with this. Moreover, the "split passage" section is introduced somewhere in the 60s, I believe, in which a single reading is split into two passages by different authors. All recent LSATs have included a split passage reading, so you will definitely want to get comfortable on the 7Sage strategy for attacking these kinds of passages.

I hope that's helpful. To repeat my bottom line: if you're aiming for a 165+, I don't think it's possible without exposure to recent tests. That doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams - they all complement each other and play a critical role in preparing you for the real test.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the detailed information. I think I will just purchase some recent PTs from LSAC directly and use those in combination with the 7Sage PTs I already have. Curious if you have any strong opinions about studying for the digital LSAT using paper PTs?

@ said:

Yes! I used one November and had no issues

thanks, it explicitly states the only materials you can have on your desktop and a lamp isn't one of them so I was a little worried.