Here's my anecdotal evidence that the 70s PTs are harder (or at least different) from earlier modern PTs.
PTs 54-59, 61, 62, 65, 66 (Not cherry picking, these are just the tests I've done from these series):
Avg. score: 174.5 (high 177 [thrice], low 170 [once])
Avg. RC: -2.3
Avg. LR: -2.4
Avg. LG: -2.6
PTs 70-77 (excluding PT 76):
Avg. score: 171.1 (high 174 [once], low 169 [twice])
Avg. RC: -2.7
Avg. LR: -4.8
Avg. LG: -2.9
For me at least, this is clear evidence that the LSAT has evolved. That evolution has made the test noticeably harder.
A couple interesting data points:
* I once got three consecutive -0 RCs in the 50s. Haven't gotten a single one since.
* I'm now getting twice as many questions wrong on LR. I think it's because they're using less formal logic and more complex grammar forms and/or extremely subtly wrong trap answer choices.
Anyone else seen a similar trend? I found this exercise simultaneously interesting and depressing.
Comments
I ain't gonna sugarcoat this, because you don't need me to Because YOU GOT THIS.
At this point I can't even tell the difference between new LR, old LR, etc. It's all the same to me now because my skills are to the point where I'm not vulnerable to any of the particular eras of tests. Emphasis on NOW ... It took a lot of work to get to this point. But it's work anyone can do.
Now you still have to crush those short questions, but you need the time to attack the more numerous longer ones rather than using the same amount of time to fully dissect the toughest questions/eliminate traps
Basically the added "difficulty" comes from increased volume, not necessarily tougher questions or logic
As test takers have become more evolved, so has the test.
But what @"Nicole Hopkins" & @CantGetRight is right, with Mastery, you dont notoce the difference.
Hugely demoralizing considering how close the date is and how well I've been doing to the point (consistently 172-175 ten tests in a row and now the last 3 I've taking in the 70s have been 168).
Took another test yesterday and I was calm, but focused - felt quite confident about it too.
No difference. Really finding that the foundations I've built just don't seem to be transferring to the newer tests. I'm feeling a little let down that I seem to be so good at doing older tests after all of this prep but nearly no better at LR on the newer ones than when I started.
I know the orthodoxy is that if you keep putting in good practice the results will come. But at some point I'm gonna have to take the test and move on to the many other things in my life that I've been putting off since I started studying in September. My best is all I can give.
But I have found the tacit understanding on LR question structure I gained from the core curriculum significantly less helpful for the newer LRs - it may be because the question stems are less straightforward or something of the sort but I don't remember it being addressed anywhere in the CC that a shift's taken place where at a minimum it surely has in at least a superficial way.
I think if you have the drilling and reviewing down coupled with the concepts, it should be all relative right? The newer tests are just a different way of testing the same concepts? I'm really hoping the answer is yes, as I have been going really slowly at mastering the different facets of LR.
One more week, guys. We can do it.