Older PT scores

shine.on.me

Hello all,
Me again. I'm starting PTs excessively early. I'm Blind Reviewing but not reviewing too intensively yet on incorrect questions. I'm a retaker so I have a base of knowledge and know my problem areas on the entirety of the LSAT but I'm not too far into my 7Sage course. I'm looking at October for a retake which is what I think will be honestly more than enough time to get to my target score of 170+. I work full-time and I know it will be very difficult for me to do 2-3 PTs a week when it gets close to game day. I took the June 2007 PT last month scored a 149 timed and 155 Blind review. I took PT 44-October 2004 this weekend. I got a 153 timed and 160 Blind Review. Now, that is higher than any of the PTs I took for preparing my first "real" LSAT in September and the September score was a 145 about average to what I was doing on PTs at the time. I never dreamed of seeing a 160 this early in my prep, even on BR. And I'm having a difficult time giving myself credit for improvement. Admittedly, its not huge but its an improvement nonetheless. Essentially what I am getting at is I've heard the older tests are easier and how indicative of improvement are the older tests? And furthermore, its just two tests that are better, should I consider consistency? I know I need more improvement but to see improvement is good I think, but I worry about giving myself any sense of false confidence. Any advice would be appreciated.

jdawg113

improvement is improvement. Earlier tests are a little bit different but imo not necessarily all that much easier. There is clearly fundamental issues that you need to address. I would try going over a question type in the course and then drilling a whole bunch of that type to help understand the workings of the questions. That will do you much more benefit than taking actual PT's right now

ddakjiking

+1 @jdawg113
I highly recommend spending the next month or two going over the 7sage curriculum and drilling the question types. I would avoid taking PT's for now to save them for when you're ready. I made that mistake in burning through a lot fresh test when I was only scoring in the 150's.

blah170blah

I would say there are certain advantages and disadvantages of earlier prep tests that you should keep in mind. The big advantage that I noticed was that the games felt much harder in PTs 1-30 than after, which is super helpful in conquering the curve-breaker games in recent PTs. I would say RC has been pretty consistent, save for the intro of comparative passages. I think LR has gotten progressively harder not because the stimuli have become more difficult but because the wrong answer choices seem even more convincing than before.

I agree with what both @jdawg113 and @ddakjiking said about reviewing fundamentals before taking PTs.

emli1000

I agree with the above comments. I think that RC has gotten harder on the more recent PTs.

alexroark5

I agree with most of what blah170 said. I do feel however that RC did get harder on more recent tests for the same reason LR did (the wrong answers were harder to weed out). I think also in general the curve tends to be a little more forgiving on the earlier PTs.

harrismegan

sounds like me exactly.... retaking in October... working full time. I haven't started my first prep test (pre tests will start in March I believe for me). Good luck

shine.on.me

Thanks everyone for your advice. @jdawg113 I agree PT 44 did not seem all that much easier. But it sounds understandable on wrong answers being more difficult to weed out.

I thought I was going to be further along on my course than I actually am so I slated for starting PTs in February. I took the June 2007 test last month a diagnostic to see where I was at after taking 3 months off from studying. So, I think I will take at least a few more weeks before taking anymore PTs. I'm a little better than half way through the logic curriculum now. Planning on finishing up that this week.

I think through the weekdays. I'm going to focus on alternating between coursework, LR drills, games, and reading Scientific American, Harper's, Time, and other dense reading. I'm focusing on Scientific American, because my biggest struggles are on science passages and stimuli. Admittedly, I have work to do in fundamentals as well but I think reading science topics will help.

Anyway I'm rambling. Thanks again everyone and good luck to you too @harrismegan. :-)

tsamvelyan

I feel like on the most recent tests, you absolutely have to know conditional logic, negation, all that good stuff. The only way I've been able to conquer the harder questions on the most recent prep tests (specifically LR section) has been through application of the things mentioned.

I found the games in the 50's to be the easiest but they have progressively gotten more difficult. I feel like the common practice for most recent tests is to give 2 easy games, one hard, time consuming and complicated game and one time sinker, but not necessarily difficult game.

Reading Comp. - Not an expert on this. But while the questions seem standard I feel like the passages have gotten a bit more difficult.