Using PT 36-58 Only

Comments

• 2 Likes

  Most Strongly Confused Alum Member

  November 2019 36 karma

  You're likely to get a lot of differing views to this question. But to put my bottom line up front: yes, I think you are missing out by not seeing any PTs in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. If you're aiming for a score in the mid-160s, I would argue that you absolutely need exposure to the more recent tests, though that doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams.

  I've taken close to 20 practice tests ranging from PT 36 to PT 87, and also took the actual LSAT in both September and November (i.e. yesterday). So take my advice for what you think it's worth.

  Games: First, the LG substitution and rule equivalence questions are introduced somewhere in the 60s. You're practically guaranteed to encounter this question on the real test, it's quite common these days. Not having practiced this kind of question often could cost you a question or two on test day. That said, they also tend to be the curve-breaker questions. Even JY says that unless you're very good at LG (and shooting for a high score), you should strongly consider skipping the rule equivalence questions. Second, although they didn't show up on the last three LSATs, the "miscellaneous games" are increasingly common. These games don't qualify as grouping, in/out, or sequencing. You'll see a few examples in the 30s-50s, but not as many as on the more recent PTs.

  LR: I agree with JY's analysis here, which is that at their core, all LR questions are testing the same core concepts no matter how old. At a fundamental level, if you're solid on your logic and follow the 7Sage method of diagraming arguments and identifying assumptions, you're in good shape. That said, I believe JY has said that the newer LR questions seem to ask questions in a slightly different way. I totally agree with him, but it's hard for me to put my finger on the precise differences. There generally seems to be fewer questions that make use of conditional logic and more arguments that involve contrived situations and scenarios. I don't think it's fair to call the newer questions more difficult, but they do require you to quickly ID assumptions to strengthen/weaken, identify the NA/SA, or resolve the paradox (RRE). I also think the argument part questions have become much more difficult on the very recent exams. It's no longer as simple as identifying a premise or conclusion, but in some cases explaining how the premise supports the conclusion or determining whether a premise receives any support from elsewhere in the argument.

  Reading Comp: The general consensus is that the reading comp sections have become more difficult in recent years. I agree with this. Moreover, the "split passage" section is introduced somewhere in the 60s, I believe, in which a single reading is split into two passages by different authors. All recent LSATs have included a split passage reading, so you will definitely want to get comfortable on the 7Sage strategy for attacking these kinds of passages.

  I hope that's helpful. To repeat my bottom line: if you're aiming for a 165+, I don't think it's possible without exposure to recent tests. That doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams - they all complement each other and play a critical role in preparing you for the real test.
• -_______- Core Member

  November 2019 18 karma

  @"Most Strongly Confused" said:
  You're likely to get a lot of differing views to this question. But to put my bottom line up front: yes, I think you are missing out by not seeing any PTs in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. If you're aiming for a score in the mid-160s, I would argue that you absolutely need exposure to the more recent tests, though that doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams.

  I've taken close to 20 practice tests ranging from PT 36 to PT 87, and also took the actual LSAT in both September and November (i.e. yesterday). So take my advice for what you think it's worth.

  Games: First, the LG substitution and rule equivalence questions are introduced somewhere in the 60s. You're practically guaranteed to encounter this question on the real test, it's quite common these days. Not having practiced this kind of question often could cost you a question or two on test day. That said, they also tend to be the curve-breaker questions. Even JY says that unless you're very good at LG (and shooting for a high score), you should strongly consider skipping the rule equivalence questions. Second, although they didn't show up on the last three LSATs, the "miscellaneous games" are increasingly common. These games don't qualify as grouping, in/out, or sequencing. You'll see a few examples in the 30s-50s, but not as many as on the more recent PTs.

  LR: I agree with JY's analysis here, which is that at their core, all LR questions are testing the same core concepts no matter how old. At a fundamental level, if you're solid on your logic and follow the 7Sage method of diagraming arguments and identifying assumptions, you're in good shape. That said, I believe JY has said that the newer LR questions seem to ask questions in a slightly different way. I totally agree with him, but it's hard for me to put my finger on the precise differences. There generally seems to be fewer questions that make use of conditional logic and more arguments that involve contrived situations and scenarios. I don't think it's fair to call the newer questions more difficult, but they do require you to quickly ID assumptions to strengthen/weaken, identify the NA/SA, or resolve the paradox (RRE). I also think the argument part questions have become much more difficult on the very recent exams. It's no longer as simple as identifying a premise or conclusion, but in some cases explaining how the premise supports the conclusion or determining whether a premise receives any support from elsewhere in the argument.

  Reading Comp: The general consensus is that the reading comp sections have become more difficult in recent years. I agree with this. Moreover, the "split passage" section is introduced somewhere in the 60s, I believe, in which a single reading is split into two passages by different authors. All recent LSATs have included a split passage reading, so you will definitely want to get comfortable on the 7Sage strategy for attacking these kinds of passages.

  I hope that's helpful. To repeat my bottom line: if you're aiming for a 165+, I don't think it's possible without exposure to recent tests. That doesn't mean that you should neglect the older exams - they all complement each other and play a critical role in preparing you for the real test.

  Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the detailed information. I think I will just purchase some recent PTs from LSAC directly and use those in combination with the 7Sage PTs I already have. Curious if you have any strong opinions about studying for the digital LSAT using paper PTs?
• 1 Like

  Most Strongly Confused Alum Member

  November 2019 36 karma

  @"-_______-" said:

  Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the detailed information. I think I will just purchase some recent PTs from LSAC directly and use those in combination with the 7Sage PTs I already have. Curious if you have any strong opinions about studying for the digital LSAT using paper PTs?

  I definitely think buying a few recent exams is a better strategy than not seeing them at all. But I would argue that you're still missing a lot by not having the 7Sage explanation videos. I think you can buy individual PTs from 7Sage and would strongly recommend doing that if it's an affordable option. Otherwise, if you can't get them from 7Sage, just be sure you're doing the strongest and most disciplined blind review possible. Really make sure you've broken down and analyzed the exam questions before looking at the answers.

  As for the paper vs. digital prep, I think digital prep is really valuable and would say that the more closely you simulate the real exam-day scenario, the better you will do. I think you have to be more than merely comfortable using the digital interface, it has to be second nature so that on test day, you're running on auto-pilot to navigate between questions, flag, and highlight text. Everything needs to be force of habit so you don't waste a second adapting to an unfamiliar interface. For example, I've found that highlighting in the digital version (both 7Sage's and LSAC's) is too clumsy and not nearly responsive enough to use on RC. In fact, the only time I use the highlight function is for LR argument part questions.

  If you absolutely must use the the paper exam for some reason, I would be incredibly strict with yourself and not markup the stimuluses or RC sections.
• 1 Like

  Lolo1996 Member

  November 2019 498 karma

  Hey! I’m going to say no.

  I was scoring ~151 in July, and only used 49-52 and 69 to study, I scored 154 (I cancelled tho cause it was a freebie)

  When I heard about the horror story of PT 88 logic games, and all my friends telling me how they were memorizing that game, I didn’t even bother to look at it — LSAC is not stupid, they aren’t going to use a trick from the 80’s PT on the next test. I was right. I just wrote November.

  I have done practically every single PT by now, except a couple from the 70s and 80s (maybe 8 total). Even PTs 1-20, which are so old everyone disregards, are good practice! Also, great games. The BEST games are in the 30s and 40s. The toughest RC i encountered was 57, another hard game in 57, the last game in 68 is great as well, as is 62.

  I also find the older tests harder. The questions are a little different, but its more or less the same (less MBT/conditionals (I don't even remember a single one on the most recent test), more disagrees).

  I would be happy to share my PTs with you (for free lol).
• 1 Like

  Andrew_Neiman Alum Member

  November 2019 258 karma

  Lol! Lolo- Koch Curve messed me up silly XD