Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 30 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Are the older LR sections easier?
Pride Only Hurts
Alum Member
I’ve noticed a significant increase in difficulty while drilling LR sections from PT 42-51 compared to those from PT 29-38. Do the LR sections get more difficult? I’ve read that some people think they do and others don’t notice any difference. I guess I’m asking you guys to resolve this apparent paradox for me. If there is a difference, then hopefully it will expose a weakness in my fundamentals.
Comments
Yes, but I don't think in those tests. Think more like 62+ being far harder than anything 1-60.
They have shifted from basically wanting simple "deductive" reasoning to shifting to "inductive" reasoning. The level of inferences have shifted on the spectrum from basically absolutes to maybe or strongly inferred.
Agree
I think they are easier too, particularly in the 40s and 50s. I also noticed a shift in the 70s and even more so in the 80s. They may not be harder, per se, but they are definitely different.
I agree with what is stated above, the earlier sections overall seem easier to me and that is reflected in my scores as well.
Have you been able to adjust yourself to the newer LR sections or are you still working toward getting your score back to where it was?
For the sake of this conversation, lets assume there is truth in 62+ being harder / different than <60. Am I better served redoing sections in the 62+ range that I have already seen (6 months to a year in the past) or fresh sections in the 30-57 range? Asking for a friend...
So, you're best off by doing neither if this is part of the issue for your score variance. You are best off by learning how to play with logic and the English words. Tests help you do this, but they won't check your mastery every time. The old tests have less of this so obviously you will get far less practice in those than in the newer ones and even less checks on it. The old ones are good for solidifying your BASIC logical statements. Before you go into the test center for a real score, it's best to review stuff from the purple or the pink/reddish book. They are most like the newer tests. Given that they are the newer released tests it makes sense.
If you have 7sage's course, you're best off reviewing your vocabulary synonyms in logical force and making sure you can do the chain with a blindfold on and at maximum speed. If your logic is strong and to the point you know you would NEVER not make an inference you could make then you are solid. I could do that and had issues with this still. The wording and such has changed. So make sure your answers are always within scope given what was in the stimulus. It can never be too strong or too weak. It MUST be pertinent to the evidence. If it leaves something up for thought it's not the right answer ever. If something COULD support or wreck something, make sure there isn't something better than is stronger than could do the same such as more than likely. Could<more like than not. When I worked on pacing for the test I worked in the old tests. I think that was stupid. I should have worked only in pacing on the new tests because if this is an issue the old tests will say you are amazing like it told me when I would do LR with 10 mins left and 0 wrong. The new tests came and brought me down hard. I got so frustrated in my score fluctuations. For anyone aiming to score above 170+ it is imperative you have this down. If you are having other LR variance that isn't on the logic strength, I don't know what it is. I mean MBT, conclusion, etc are straight forward and thus why they do less of those than ever if you have noticed. They have shifted from those to MSS. They seldom give a shit about a conclusion now. That is because with MSS they can play find the flag in various spots and keep their curve about the same despite all the prep courses.
Now, should you just keep redoing new tests? No. There is good practice in old tests. Do you want to make sure you mastered it to the expectations of the new tests? Yes. They require a bigger level of mastery. I'm not sure if it's because of courses like 7Sage, Manhattan, etc. The LSAT doesn't want their curve changing much. They still want a logic test, but they want to make answers more slippery and less blatant to mechanistic approaches. Can they do that? Not if you're very good. Logic forces the same type of deductions possible. They can just make it harder for it to pop out at you with wording.
This was for variance in LR/RC that some people have asked. This is NOT pertinent really to games. Games are basically all deductive reasoning and why I crushed them really quickly but struggled to improve my RC and LR sections for a long time despite doing the core, despite doing PTs, etc. I was using my prowess of my deductive reasoning as a crutch and it was failing because you should be using inductive reasoning heavily for LR and RC. I mean J.Y. talks about when knowing how to move on after picking an answer choice for games but I never remembered him seeing him do it for RC/LR although I hope he has in the updated lessons they have done. There is a point when if you want those juicy 170+ scores you have to know when you pick that point up and run with it like it was a free million bucks and don't look back. This will also help with pacing so you have that minute and a half or so for the challenging questions.So, recap, first focus on your ability to manipulate logic and focus on making inferences from the bottom to the top and asking if that is the best/strongest answer out of the 5. This will make your MSS more accurate and other questions where they want a strong inductive reasoning.
I am not saying that there can't be other issues with score variance. Maybe you can't get parallel questions down. Those are deductive basically. Maybe you can't get main point questions down in RC so you get variance. There could be variance for many issues, but for large variance this was my issue and it makes sense because they have increased the inductive reasoning expectations and wants in the newer tests. This is an analysis of why I believe the newer tests are more challenging and why there can be huge score variance for someone that seems to understand the test well.
This should probably also not be your priority to fix. This is basically an anecdotal analysis of why I was seeing huge variance in score and why I found the newer tests more challenging. At that point I was scoring past 165+ though. I didn't want to lie to people and tell them they are going crazy when they think the newer tests are harder or that score variance can't be fixed. There were two of these threads on the main page so I thought I'd chime in. When you're in the lower ranges you focus on the basics. Master the basics in the curriculum first. Don't try to figure out how to do great steals in basketball without learning how to dribble. No point if you can steal a ball but can't dribble it three feet in front of you. How can you even come close to scoring if you get called on when you move two feet?
I think it can be helpful to skip around some. As your test date approaches, lean more on the newer material to make sure you are ready. Older ones are just fine for drilling, and always helpful to have fresh material. But it's also unlikely that you'll remember all the newer stuff you've already taken. There's still use there. But I'd maybe drill from older ones for a bit then as the test date approaches, study mostly from late 60s and up.
For sure. I went from -22 LR diagnostic to -6 on PT 30, then -16 on PT 60, and -20 on PT 65. I have absolutely no idea what is happening.
UGH. I went -12 on 65 and 2 months later -19 on 60. I also have no idea what the eff is happening. I feel you!
I think readjusting speed might help. It's been helpful for me. I got used to moving at a certain speed in the earlier tests and became more mistake prone in the later tests. Slowed down and took my time since then my scores have gone up. Now I just need to learn to move faster with these newer sections. Weird that this seems normal but isn't addressed regularly.
Okay thank you for your tips, @jdmccar95 !