Are the old PTs useful for LR drills?

Comments

• Sprinkles Alum Member ⭐

  August 2016 11542 karma

  The general rule is the newer PTs are used for full length timed practice tests and the older ones like the ones you mentioned are meant for drills.
• Nanchito-1-1 Alum Member

  August 2016 1762 karma

  Yes. 35 and under for drills, the logic is the same.
• citizenkanye Member

  August 2016 74 karma

  Thanks so much for your responses!
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  August 2016 23929 karma

  @montaha.rizeq said:
  The general rule is the newer PTs are used for full length timed practice tests and the older ones like the ones you mentioned are meant for drills.
  

  Yeah, the skills the old PTs tests and the new PTs test are the same. Though, the way the test them might be a bit different. They still are extremely useful and you'll have 36-78 for pristine full length tests
• citizenkanye Member

  August 2016 74 karma

  So basically, the language is different but the underlying logic is the same? That's great to know, because I was worried about spending valuable time focusing on earlier PTs only to find out that they were completely different from the newer ones. Thanks for your response!
• Sprinkles Alum Member ⭐

  August 2016 11542 karma

  Yup you got it exactly right
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  August 2016 23929 karma

  @citizenkane said:
  So basically, the language is different but the underlying logic is the same? That's great to know, because I was worried about spending valuable time focusing on earlier PTs only to find out that they were completely different from the newer ones. Thanks for your response!
  

  No problemo! And like Montaha already said, exactly right! Same skills and underlying logic, but different wording is basically what it comes down to.
  
  Nothing you practice doing from any of the official LSATs will be a waste.
• citizenkanye Member

  August 2016 74 karma

  Thanks guys Somewhat unrelated but could you say the same of the usefulness of doing earlier RC sections? I've heard that they're a lot easier in the earlier PTs, so is it better to focus on drilling RC sections that come after, say, the PT 35 mark?
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  August 2016 23929 karma

  @citizenkane said:
  Thanks guys Somewhat unrelated but could you say the same of the usefulness of doing earlier RC sections? I've heard that they're a lot easier in the earlier PTs, so is it better to focus on drilling RC sections that come after, say, the PT 35 mark?
  

  Yup, I think the same goes for RC. While some will find the older RCs easier, they are still testing the same skills. They are perfect to learn/test strategies on, without burning pristine practice tests.
  
• citizenkanye Member

  August 2016 74 karma

  Thanks, Alex!
• katherine.t Alum Member

  August 2016 101 karma

  Quick query - after the curriculum, is there an average number of PT's people go through before they hit the high 160's/170's?
• 1 Like

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  August 2016 27900 karma

  There's no magic number @katherine.t . I'd suspect a majority of 170+ scorers take basically all of the PTs, but I think that's just what high scorers do, not that that's necessarily what it takes to become a high scorer. Everyone's rate of improvement will be different. What's important isn't how many PTs you take, it's how well you utilize the ones you do take. Getting 100% out of 10 PTs is far better than getting 80% out of all 78. Focus on that. That's what differentiates top scorers.