How useful is the LR from PT 1-16?

nantesorkestar

Hey everyone,

So I am mainly drilling sections PT 1-35 for the next couple months before PT stage. I drilled a LR section from PT 1 and found it to be really weird. The question stems are different and I felt overall, that the passages are written differently. I definitely underperformed on it compared to 1996 and beyond. I know the logic is the same but am I wasting my time focusing on 1-16?

Sorry if this question has been asked before. Thanks!

joecarterruskey

I think they are useful for what you are doing. Great for learning, just not an accurate gauge of what you'll get on test day

Cant Get Right

LR has changed somewhat. There are certain question types that are no longer used and a few weird things they did differently. But like you say, the logic is still the same, and so these sections remain highly useful. Plus, you never know when they are going to revive some kooky old game or LR question type, so it’s good to master everything available to you.

MrSamIam

In the overall scheme of things, you'll still want to practice and drill with older PTs. Like @"Cant Get Right" said, the LSAT writers aren't really restricted to using "current" LR questions to craft the new LSATs.
More importantly, for every one weird question you see, there are probably at least 5 currently-in-use ones.

Ron Swanson

To echo what everyone else is saying: above all else they're useful for getting in the early repetitions on questions. Once you work your way to the most recent PTs you're aiming to refine mastery on the skills you've built during those early tests.

runiggyrun

I also find that while the logic is the same, and therefore very very useful to practice, the earlier LR lack some of the clarity and elegance of the later ones. I'd say they are more difficult in that respect (no? just me?).
So, don't worry if you're underperforming, just think about it as practicing on hills for a flat marathon - you'll run faster in the real race, your legs are going to be stronger and you'll be less likely to completely run out of gas if something goes slightly wrong.
I've also noticed that some of the later LR introduces some unusual new question types, so it's worth practicing "weird" questions, just to gain the confidence that you can still apply the same tools and logic even if you come across a question you can't neatly categorize.

Cant Get Right

@runiggyrun said:
the earlier LR lack some of the clarity and elegance of the later ones. I'd say they are more difficult in that respect (no? just me?).

Definitely not just you iggy.

danielznelson

I agree that many of the older questions aren't as finely tuned as the newer ones. I think the older LG sections are very important if only for keeping up a routine of drilling. But a large number of the earliest questions are mirrors of questions in newer PTs. There are of course "weird" questions thrown in, but I think being exposed to these questions helps with both confidence and clarity as to how far the logic of LSAT questions can extend. Some of the oldest LG sections have very weird games, some of which may be coming back for all we know, and performing well in those sections will almost surely give you more confidence to tackle weird LG games should you come across them in newer PTs. In the same way, old LR questions can help your preparation.

nantesorkestar

Thanks for the kind insight everyone! Yes, I agree with @runiggyrun and @"Cant Get Right" that the older LR questions seemed to harder from an intuitive sense. This isn't my first time studying for the test so I am "used to" the wording of recent PT's and questions, so I guess 1-16 give me a little bit of culture shock haha. The logic and reasoning is clearly consistent throughout.

Also, I came across a question in an early PT when they put computer "virus" in quotes. @"Cant Get Right", you would appreciate that.