Old PTs vs New PTs?

shainabarber

I just took the LSAT for the first time this past Saturday (10/3). I know I didn't do as well as I need to - or even as well as I was PTing leading up the test. The RC threw me off and I had a mini panick attack (I calmed down quickly). Also, the break threw me off my concentration.

With all that said, I'm feeling good about retesting in December! the first time experience should help me be more calm, and I feel like I know exactly where I need to focus my efforts.

I'm thinking of buying the LR, LG, and RC bundles for PT1-38 from CambridgeLSAT, but am curious what the thoughts are about the reliability of old PTs vs. newer? Of course, I'm gonna do the new ones, but I'm gonna save them for closer to December. Are PT's 1-38 worth the time and money?

c.janson35

The tests are subtly different but are still worthwhile in my opinion--especially for drilling. You probably won't need more tests than 38-76 to take as full PTs either, so I wouldn't worry about using the early tests to drill and hone in your logic skillz.

lschoolgo

@shainabarber
the difference in difficulty of RC is the reason i ended up withdrawing from the Oct test. I was near perfect on the old RC but I am going worse than -6 on the recent RC.

regardless of what people say i am finding that old RC is not much use or indicative of one's performance on current RC. you can still drill using the old RC but it's certainly not representative of difficulty of current RC

badgalriri

I think the earlier tests are good for drilling and practicing games. It doesn't make a big difference though. When I switched from the 7-15s to 52s, I had a sudden -10 to -15 drop but after 2 tests I adjusted back to my normal range

mimimimi

I do not find old PTs helpful in gauging your performance on the test because they are just so different. I find RC much more difficult in modern LSAT. I would not say LGs are getting easier - they are just more difficult to understand sometimes. LRs have shorter stimulus but the correct answers are more subtle. I'd rather re-drill the recent PTs and this is in fact what I am going to do (I have no fresh PTs left...)

RM112015

I agree. The old RC sections are nowhere near as difficult as today's RC. If anything, the old RC sections are great for getting accustomed to and practicing the type of language and subject matter on the section, but the questions are far more straightforward in my opinion. The answer choices are also relatively more easy to eliminate via process of elimination than today's RC sections. I tend to average around -2/-4 on old RC sections but tend to average -6/-7 on today's RC.

shainabarber

Anyone have an idea what# PT has the rigor of modern tests? Like where do we see the shift in difficulty?

Ron Swanson

I'd say the shift in difficulty starts to become noticeable in the 60s. Some say the 50s, depends on your strengths/weaknesses

nicole.hopkins

@lschoolgo said:
regardless of what people say i am finding that old RC is not much use or indicative of one's performance on current RC.

100% true, IMO

nicole.hopkins

@"Ron Swanson" said:
I'd say the shift in difficulty starts to become noticeable in the 60s. Some say the 50s, depends on your strengths/weaknesses

True--Don't forget about Maize and Riddled Basins, both of which were late 40's/early 50's.

nicole.hopkins

@shainabarber said:
what# PT has the rigor of modern tests? Like where do we see the shift in difficulty?

I noticed shifts began in the mid 60's. Another shift in the 70's but of a more subtle nature.

jyang72

Maize, riddle basin, mid ocean ridge definitely hurt me deeply.

LeoA1994

@RM112015 said:
I agree. The old RC sections are nowhere near as difficult as today's RC. If anything, the old RC sections are great for getting accustomed to and practicing the type of language and subject matter on the section, but the questions are far more straightforward in my opinion.

For someone who is also contemplating the same as OP - would you then suggest only buying 1-38 packets of LG & LR, and just focusing on the RC from newer PT sections?

shainabarber

I decided to buy them all. I need something that I could use to drill the memory method etc. Once I'm scoring -0 on the old PTS I'll know I'm ready to move on to harder PTs.

RM112015

@LeoA1994 I would suggest buying them all honestly. While the question difficulty does not translate across all of the PTs, the old RCs are still great for getting used to the subject matter and language. They're also a great way to practice developing good habits, techniques and your general approach to the section.

I would also add that the fundamentals do not change across LSAT tests. However, what makes the modern RC sections relatively more difficult is how much more carefully and closely you have to read each passage. That is, while letting structure and the main points guide you is still a valid strategy, you also have to be able to understand the details when particular questions ask about them, and you must understand the role that a word or phrase plays in the structure as a whole. These types of questions are a lot more difficult on the modern RCs in my opinion, yet they still relate to the overall structure and purpose of the passage. With practice, of course, this task becomes a lot less intimidating and you should see yourself improving on RC.

megsvyas_OVO

Hi all! I find all of this advice really helpful as well! I'm really struggling with how to use the old PTs versus the new ones (I haven't touched any of the new ones 35+ just yet). I'm floored by how hard the LGs in PTs 5 and 6 are...I know the fundamentals are the same across all PTs but damn...! Lol. Anyone else feel this way?

Am I correct when I say that the general consensus to use PTs 1-35 to drill and then move on to timed PTs with 35+? Another 7Sager gave me great advice re: me overthinking things, so please feel free to shed light!

nicole.hopkins

@megsvyas said:
Anyone else feel this way?

Yep!

nicole.hopkins

@megsvyas said:
then move on to timed PTs with 35+?

Finish the curriculum and then start taking PT's. If scores haven't improved much over diagnostic at that point, post in the forums and we will attempt to diagnose.

megsvyas_OVO

Hey @nicole.hopkins thanks so much for the feedback! I did finish the curriculum thoroughly! I'm really, truly struggling with how to move forward beyond this point. When you say start taking PTs do you mean the PTs 35+? I have this fear of wasting PTs so I don't know what to touch or what not to touch. So far, I've started just drilling LGs from PT1 onward and then drilling random LR and RC sections (all also within the PT 1-16 range). I feel as if the moving along is slow, but part of me doesn't want to move forward before I go through all the LGs in 1-35...I really am stuck on how to proceed!

DumbHollywoodActor

@megsvyas said:
I have this fear of wasting PTs

Wasting PTs is when you take PTs but have little knowledge of logic, of how to read for reasoning structure, and of argumentation. If you have gone through the curriculum thoroughly and you’ve had eyes on every game in LG 1-35, then I’d say it’s time to start PTing with some seriously thorough BR (for instance, I typed out an explanation for every question for my first 5 tests. This is extreme, but useful.). After about 5 PTs, check your analytics. If you see a huge deficiency in a particular question type, start drilling that question type (so that you can do those question types in your sleep) between PTs.

megsvyas_OVO

@DumbHollywoodActor thanks for your response! I really appreciate this community. I have not yet laid eyes on every LG from 1-35. As of today, I'm still on the LGs from PT6. Should I just keep going through them until I I hit PT35? I took PT 20 as a diagnostic after I finished the curriculum and scored -10 LR (-5 on each section), -3 on LG, and -8 on RC. I then decided I should go back and start drilling LGs on 1-35 before I take another PT, while still drilling some LR and RC sections in there to keep those skills up.

Thoughts on this? Do you think I should just start PTing? And if so, at which PT# should I start? I did a thorough BR for PT20 just like you, actually! Typed out every question I got wrong, cut it out for later review, etc.

megsvyas_OVO

@DumbHollywoodActor, I do want to add that internally I felt like I cheated a little because I did remember a lot of PT 20 from the curriculum. So I'm not sure what to do.

DumbHollywoodActor

@megsvyas said:
I then decided I should go back and start drilling LGs on 1-35 before I take another PT, while still drilling some LR and RC sections in there to keep those skills up.

I think this is a pretty good idea. @Pacifico ’s Logic Game Strategy is also a way to go: http://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy. I jokingly call it his calling card, but it’s a solid strategy before going onto PTs.

Have you read LSAT Trainer? I actually read the LSAT Trainer while I went through LG PT 1-35. I’d do one section per day and read a chapter per day. Took a little over a month. Just another option.

The goal is to get LG DOWN as soon as possible, then hit the PTs with serious BR, Rinse and Repeat.

megsvyas_OVO

I AM USING @Pacifico's strategy!!! Woo hoo. He was kind enough to send me an email to share the LG tracker he was using. I did thoroughly go through the Trainer -- before I started the curriculum actually. So, I am sorry if I'm being annoying, but I just want to get my methodology straight from here on out. 1) Finish all LG 1-35 and get that down pat (meanwhile, drill some random LG and RC sections from older PTs?). 2) After 1-35 LGs are down, start PTing and thoroughly BRing - is that correct? Now, when I do finish LG 1-35 and start PTing and BR-ing, what PT# should I start? Should I shoot straight for PT36? Or should I start with older tests?

DumbHollywoodActor

36 is good to start

megsvyas_OVO

Thanks @DumbHollywoodActor you're the best!

sarah.xuw

anyone feel that LR getting more and more difficult in the new PTs?

nicole.hopkins

@sarah.xuw you'll get used to it!