LSAT getting "looser"?

Comments

• 4 Likes

  danielznelson Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  June 2017 4181 karma

  Yeah, I've definitely noticed this as well, and to a varying extent according to any one PT.

  Correct AC in RC are clouded with more referential phrasing and synonymous words/terms/phrases that do not immediately seem appealing. This often leads us to quickly pass over the AC, leaving us to choose between trap ACs, many of which are much clearer and more transparent than the correct AC.

  In LR, many Principle and RRE Questions contain correct ACs that contain deliberately unsupported pieces that you just have to assume are okay. I don't think older tests did this as much. While the correct AC often, if not usually, wasn't airtight, it was more due to the fact that you had to grant a slight gap or assume two different terms/words were synonymous. Now, while they still do that, the new tests like to throw in an extra word/phrase that comes out of nowhere, and they usually seem to appeal to common sense assumptions (e.g. one thing being "better" than something else or one thing being "desired").
• goingfor99th Free Trial Member

  June 2017 3072 karma

  I've definitely noticed something similar to the things you two are describing.
• hon132 Free Trial Member

  June 2017 122 karma

  Well, given all the training materials out there, the test makers have to adjust their tests so that you're not just practicing to "beat" the LSAT. An example is the Mensa IQ test, you're only allowed to take it one time so folks aren't just retaking it over and over until they're in the top percentile.
• 6 Likes

  Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  June 2017 6869 karma

  "Looser" is not the correct term. The answer choices are as tight and objectively/independently justifiable as ever - they're just not as cookie-cutter as before. None of the things dzn mentioned above (and a lot of that is in fact happening) make a 'tight' question into a 'loose' question - they simply turn a formulaic question into one that actually demands complete understanding of the underlying concept.
• 1 Like

  Daniel.Sieradzki Member Sage ⭐

  June 2017 edited June 2017 2301 karma

  I would agree that the test has changed a little in recent tests in terms of how questions and answers are phrased. However, I would argue that it has actually gotten a little more logically clear in recent LR sections. These questions really demand that you understand the underlying logical principles. For example, the tough NA questions that have a correct answer that is both necessary and sufficient. They make total sense logically, but they catch people off guard who are looking for a formulaic answer (an NA-only answer). The test makers are preventing students from just using the Negation Test to find the right answer without thinking too hard about it.

  RC feels like it has gotten a lot harder. The differences between the correct answer and a tempting trap answer can hinge on a single word. However, the right answer is still clearly the right answer (sometimes after a long BR session), it is just not as easy to spot it. On the old tests, the wrong RC answers were often really crappy answers.

  The LSAT writers are testing our ability to really think about these problems and not just rely on great training and study tools.
• dishwasher Member

  June 2017 34 karma

  In years past we're explicitly told to never make assumptions that aren't there and not involve common sense (i.e. operate only on information that is given and not a shred more). But now, for both RC and to a lesser extent LR, one can no longer operate on that principle.
  It seems like the present-day LSAT is testing a somewhat different, if only ever slightly so, thing than it used to test. But whatever it is, it's definitely not the same.
  It's like this. You used to date this girl. Years later you two hook up again, only to find out she's not how she used to be. According to her friends and family, she's still the exact same person they've come to know and love, but you know for a fact that she's different. (I swear this example has absolutely nothing to do with the word "looser" I used to describe the LSAT.)
  Has she really changed, or have you?
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  June 2017 23929 karma

  @dishwasher said:
  In years past we're explicitly told to never make assumptions that aren't there and not involve common sense (i.e. operate only on information that is given and not a shred more). But now, for both RC and to a lesser extent LR, one can no longer operate on that principle.
  It seems like the present-day LSAT is testing a somewhat different, if only ever slightly so, thing than it used to test. But whatever it is, it's definitely not the same.
  It's like this. You used to date this girl. Years later you two hook up again, only to find out she's not how she used to be. According to her friends and family, she's still the exact same person they've come to know and love, but you know for a fact that she's different. (I swear this example has absolutely nothing to do with the word "looser" I used to describe the LSAT.)
  Has she really changed, or have you?

  LOL

  I've spent a lot of time thinking, listening, and debating this exact idea. I'm absolutely no LSAT Sage and haven't even taken the most recent tests, but from the 1-35 vs 36-80 I've seen, I tend to agree with you @dishwasher. I used to be pretty radicalized by TLS hive mind to think "looser" was the right description and perhaps more importantly, way of thinking about the newer tests.

  I think @"Jonathan Wang" makes a great point and I agree "looser" might not be the word.
  What I can never deny will be the RC on the newer tests at the very least feeling exactly like you mention. RC on the older tests intuitively came to me. (Started at -5 was about to get down to -2) with basically just some practice and the 7Sage memory method. Months later with prep I got more consistent with more prep. I took some 50s and 60s test to see what all the fuss was about and surely the right answers stopped intuitively jumping out.

  I think this sums up perfectly how I feel about the changes regardless of what we call them.

  @danielznelson said:
  Yeah, I've definitely noticed this as well, and to a varying extent according to any one PT.

  Correct AC in RC are clouded with more referential phrasing and synonymous words/terms/phrases that do not immediately seem appealing. This often leads us to quickly pass over the AC, leaving us to choose between trap ACs, many of which are much clearer and more transparent than the correct AC.

  In LR, many Principle and RRE Questions contain correct ACs that contain deliberately unsupported pieces that you just have to assume are okay. I don't think older tests did this as much. While the correct AC often, if not usually, wasn't airtight, it was more due to the fact that you had to grant a slight gap or assume two different terms/words were synonymous. Now, while they still do that, the new tests like to throw in an extra word/phrase that comes out of nowhere, and they usually seem to appeal to common sense assumptions (e.g. one thing being "better" than something else or one thing being "desired").

  Again, @"Jonathan Wang" is probably right. He's basically the only other LSAT God I've been able to actually talk and interact with that I trust next to JY Ping. He knows his stuff so I'm humbled and just kind of take what he says as gospel.

  I just feel like the "non-formulaic" changes of the newer tests do require us to sometimes make assumptions you would otherwise feel would be taking your own outside info/ thoughts too far and it certainly seems wrong sometimes. There's been times during BR on the new RC I've nearly bloody ripped the pages up, lmao because of this.