Hi guys! I'm wondering what your opinions are about the relative difficulty of the PTs in the 70s range compared to basically everything that came before them (PTs 30 and up). I've found that especially in the LR sections, the questions are SUPER nitpicky and rely on you finding very subtle nuances in the stimulus, which is difficult to do under the pressure of the clock. Also, many LR questions seem to have needlessly wordy structures and are confusingly phrased. It's making me nervous for the October test, especially since I feel that only tests 70-75 are exact indicators of what will be on the October test, and that's a limiting amount of study materials. June administration ruined my life.
Does anyone else feel like the recent tests got harder/different?
Comments
@pizzaqueen
What makes you think that the stimuli are wordier on the 60s and 70s?
Wrong answer choices are never perfect-- they are incorrect. May I ask how long you've been studying? Do you find a lot of LR questions difficult in general, or only on the 70s?
Somewhat reassuring that others don't find the 70s harder...
About the 70's.
The LSAT is the LSAT.The LSAT is written by humans.
Are there areas of striking consistency over the past 25 years?
Yes.
Are there variations across the "eras" of tests?
Yes.
Are they subtle? If you're asking whether they're noticeable, well, we would not be freaking discussing it if they were not. I like to think we're not imagining things
If you're asking whether your prep is getting you to a place where you can handle this era of tests—and I think this is ultimately what we're concerned about—yeah, I think if you're serious about understanding what the test is designed to measure, then you'll be prepared. But that's always been the case with this test.
Ultimately there are different people writing the tests at different points in time. Of course there is going to be some variation. Maybe they hired a writer in 2010 who is just really good at writing a certain nitpicky LR question. Is it still testing the same thing? Yes ... It is. No question. Reasoning structure/analysis hasn't changed in the past 25 years.
Perhaps this era of tests is honing in on another angle of LR and mixing stuff up with LG. Ok, so maybe some of us got complacent with certain aspects of tests in the 50's and 60's and now we see that that complacency is a weakness. Guess what. That weakness has been there the whole time. Now it's being exposed. So we gotta deal. Get real intimate with recent tests. Learn their curves and quirks, if you can discern them. And chill out about it.
So.
A lot of the same? You betcha.
Some things different? Of course.
Look ... people are still getting 175+ on these tests, and it's the same number of people as got those scores in the 50's and 60's. Has prep changed much since then? Eh ... I think it's gotten a lot better. Back in those days you had, like, Manhattan (in the Kim era) and Powerscore. 7sage and modern LSAT Trainer blow that stuff out of the water.
The test was hard then; the test is hard now. Let's just do our best with prep and go hard on game day.
Best I could do lmfao. Not a lot of those weird gifs on google..
And don't you think that you can just woo me with some expertly placed Coach Taylor.
1) I've got 5 (yes ... 5) PT's I've never taken, 36-75.
2) I've taken 34 or 35 tests. More than half of those have been retakes (2x). Maybe a quarter of them I've taken three times. All in all I've taken over 60 fully timed PT's.
3) With BR, there's just always more to learn. You take a test and miss certain Q's. You retake it and feel differently about other Q's 2-3 months later. Etc.
4) I didn't start PT'ing regularly until about March.
LSAC would lose its credibility if any LSAT was harder than a previous exam to attain a certain score. The exam HAS to be consistent. That's why test-takers must complete an experimental section.