How I scored a 180 (PT 44) and a 179 (PT 45)

Ty the Frog

Making this post because JY and Bojack prompted me to (haha)

I wish I could post a screenshot of my analytics here; they paint a better picture of my progress.
Long story short, I've been prepping on and off since September last year. I truly believe that, unless you're a freak of logic and are just genetically predisposed to the sort of thinking required for this exam, you need to be prepared to grind it out for the long haul. Taking breaks (even month-long ones) is perfectly okay so long as you recognize that you'll have to build yourself back up again after a lengthy one (it's just like building strength & muscle in the gym).

If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Honestly, I feel like I still have a long way to go. When you get a 180 on a PT here, JY sends you a message where Bojack tells you that you have no more room to improve, but I don't think that's the case. I can still improve on time, and I really need to have no room for error if I am to achieve my goal of getting a 178+ (preferably a 180) on the October LSAT.
So don't take my words as gospel haha. I'm definitely not an LSAT god or anything yet.

Safe travels everyone.

P.S. I'm actually wondering whether I should just skip to later PTs (I've been taking PTs one by one in order), and I'm also wondering how much PTs in the 40s differ from PTs in the 90s. Can someone with experience help me out here? I don't think I can take the rest of the PTs (46 - 93) by October 14, so I'm wondering how I should tackle them by that time.

Matt Sorr

Congrats on the back-to-back awesome scores! It has to feel good seeing such strong results after putting in so much work.

In terms of which PTs to take, I'd definitely advise that you attempt multiple PTs in the 80s and 90s before test day. To be as prepared as possible, I'd argue taking all tests from 80 to 93 with at least a few tests from the 70s would be optimal, though I don't think it's absolutely necessary (or even that wise if you're willing to retake). If you're open to retaking, you may want to save some tests from the 70s, 80s, and 90s so you'll have some fresh material to practice with in case you end up retaking. Bare minimum, though, I'd advise you take at least a few from the 80s and a couple from the 90s before you sit for the real thing.

The logic/reasoning behind each section hasn't changed since the earlier tests, but many people, including myself, feel that some questions and sections just feel "different" in newer tests. I don't necessarily mean different in a good or bad way, but rather that the concepts the testmakers seem to emphasize have shifted some. I'll try not to give away any possibly consequential spoilers, but to give some concrete examples, some of the kinds of questions you saw relatively frequently in older LR sections seem to have basically disappeared in newer LR sections, while things they didn't seem to test you on much in older LR sections seem more emphasized in newer tests. Additionally, RC added comparative passages starting with (I believe) PT 52, so you'll certainly want to attempt at least a few of those before your official test.

To appeal less to concrete examples and more to common sense, the test writers have also changed since the PTs in the 40s and earlier. It just seems to make sense that with a new batch of test writers, their phrasing is just going to feel a little different than older batches of test writers.

Speaking from personal experience, my scores in certain sections dipped some when I started PTing in the 70s, then dipped again starting in the 80s. After thoroughly reviewing the questions I missed and getting used to newer PTs, my scores began rising and ultimately passed my scores from older PTs, but I definitely experienced an adjustment period. While I'm sure that's not the case for everybody, I think it's best to plan for the worst and assume you might feel some discomfort when attempting newer PTs. That way, if that does come true, you will have overcome any discomfort by the time you sit for the real test.

This leads me to say: I often see people advising that you save the newer tests (meaning 80+) for the last few weeks before you take the real test. I'd advise against this. While I think it's wise to focus primarily on newer content leading up to test day, I'd actually advise you begin sprinkling in newer tests no later than a couple of months before you take the real test. Honestly, I don't think there really is a point that's "too early" to try out some of the newer content. Attempting newer PTs long before your official test gives you more time to review questions, revisit them, and gain general comfort with any new quirks you may notice about newer PTs.

A strategy I've seen discussed that I think may be worth considering is alternating the eras of PTs you pull from beginning a few months out from your official test. For instance, maybe do a test from the 60s, then one from the 80s, then one from the 70s, etc. This way, no era of tests feels like a curveball when you take the real thing. Also, it allows you to gain exposure to newer content and ingrain learnings from them further out from your test.

I hope this helps some! Nothing I've said here is gospel, but I've found it useful while preparing. You may find that a different approach works better for you and, of course, that's what ultimately matters. Just let me know if you have any questions about what I said and, again, congrats on your awesome PT scores!

Ty the Frog

Oh my god @"Matt Sorr" thank you so much! I think I will implement your recommended strategy from this week forward. You truly are a good Samaritan.

Matt Sorr

@Ty the Frog Of course! Glad to help.

sucralosedaddy

You should skip to more modern PTs since you're already at your target score. The LR is considered less formulaic; RC is more about the author's perspective/inference based and there's comparative passages (I believe starts in the low 50s); LG tends combine elements of different types of games.