Is it possible to tell PT difficulty from the conversion table?

K

On some PTs you need 9 wrong to get a 170, while on others you can have 11 wrong and get a 170.

Is that an indication of difficulty or just something I shouldn't worry about?

Litian.Chen

or maybe people taking the test that year is smarter....I don't think it really makes a difference because we are not competing with those ppl as long as it's not -10 for 170 today and -20 for 168 tomorrow..

K

yeah haha

i am just really curious because some tests feel like they have a more challenging set of questions than other tests.

James Dean

The percentiles are based on the scores of the experimental sections of the previously administered LSAT. E.G PT 60 includes sections that those sitting for Test 59 took as experimental sections. So, if the test is "more" difficult, it would have a more generous curve, such as, your reference to the -11 while still getting a 170. The curve is set by the test takers of the previous LSAT.

While in theory, there could have been a lot of geniuses sitting in the last test, it is not liking as students aptitude has remained pretty fixed over the years.

I may be incorrect, but this is what I've been told.

Eric Fu

@K there's definitely a difference in difficulty on PTs I've been taking. A more obvious variance in the modern ones too, in my opinion. I find the scale to be kind of unfair usually, so I try to improve my raw score, in general.

K

I'm finding PT 55 to be really easy. I got 1 LR wrong (section 1), none wrong in RC.

Every other PT I've gotten like ~2-4 wrong per LR section..