Older Tests Vs. Recent Tests

burstei6

I am planning on taking PT's 40-73 in sequential order before December and I am now at PT 50. I have been averaging 167-168 on the 10 I have taken so far, but the LG sections have seemed way too easy and I'm dominating the LR sections consistently, so I am wondering, has anyone noticed that the LR/LG sections for older tests are vastly different (less or more difficult) than more recent PT's? I have the impression that reading stays somewhat consistent across all of the tests except for the switch to the comparative reading passage, but other than that, if I am doing well on these early PT's, am I giving myself false confidence for the more recent ones?

adrian.miko

I found the Logic Games got tougher LSAT 63-70...

LeoFiro8

Great question...

esther.adam2013

LR IS HARDER FOR THE NEW TEST. I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THEM. THEY HAVE A LOT MORE FLAW AND NECCESSARY ASSUMPTION QUESTIONS. LG ARE EASIER FOR THE NEWER TEST.

bcbias

60 and up are different, though I don't know if they're harder as a whole. The LG game types are consistently easier, they just try and trip you up more with subtle modifier wording. LR is about the same to me, just that the second section usually has more avg word count per question(and more hard questions) and the first has less. I hate RC more now. There is more avg word count per answer choice so more reading, the passages are a bit trickier and arcane, and they like to make their hardest inference question correct answers less concretely supported by the passage(but the only one somewhat supported). I'd recommend you at least take a glance to see this and probably mix them into your PT schedule sooner.