What significant differences, if any, are there between older and newer tests??

Comments

• cooljon525-1-1 Alum Member

  November 2019 917 karma

  I thought the RC got harder
• noonawoon Alum Member ⭐

  November 2019 3481 karma

  Introduction of comparative reading passages
• 1 Like

  Adam Z. Xie Member

  November 2019 127 karma

  RCs are harder while LGs are "easier" because the newer games are more consistent due to the exclusion of many miscellaneous games.

  It is realistic to have LGs down to -1/-0 if you study correctly (e.g. foolproof).
• Mike_Ross Alum Member Sage ⭐

  November 2019 3113 karma

  I feel like the LR got more nuanced, and although the same types of cookie cutter flaws were used, they were more dressed up and required more finesse to get to. Sufficient Assumption also became less cookie cutter. Some required you to make extra inferences that the LSAT writers presume you should know

  RC definitely got harder. Questions are also more nuanced and you don’t always get your “slam dunk that’s the right AC” type of choices. You may find yourself having to pick between 2
• get that 173 Alum Member

  November 2019 122 karma

  I agree with Mike Ross. LR definitely feels more nuanced. Maybe LSAC knows most people are familiar with cookie cutter types, so they try to give you flaws/weaken/strengthens that are unique and they design the trap answers so that if you misread you'll think this is a cookie cutter type but it actually isn't
• umich101 Alum Member

  November 2019 edited November 2019 364 karma

  On that note - Is this difference substantial or say, a few questions difference?

  aka, should we not be taking the scores we are getting on early PT's as too representative, esp. if the RC is one of the stronger areas?
• clear227 Core Member

  October 2021 350 karma

  They have those new "evaluate the argument" questions for LR.