What are some of the newer changes to the modern LSAT?

Comments

• 1 Like

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  December 2017 edited December 2017 23929 karma

  @doyouevenLSATbruh said:
  So, I am close to being done drilling LRs from 1-20 (21-30 going to save), then going to start doing LR sections individually timed from 30-50 (not all going to save some for drilling and full PT).

  At the same time I am fool-proofing Games 1-35 (6-10 games; 1-3 sections), as well as 1-2 un-timed RC sections a day.

  I am studying FT until the Feb exam, my concern is on the new LSATs I have read there are some differences, such as rule substitution on games, and with RC i have not yet ran into comparison passages.

  Essentially, if anyone could suggest when these changes occur and what PTs i should have as "must-do" to study at least a few weeks before the exam, so i can start to get a feel for them.

  my goal is 2 PTs a week for January combined with drilling, fool-proofing, BR.

  update: i just found some information on this in the CC buried between PTs. Any advice would still be welcomed.

  I'll just preface my comments with saying that old tests are in my estimation probably 85-90% similar to what many consider the modern LSAT.

  But to answer your question, PT 52 and onward are what most would consider the modern LSATs. From there the test seems to take on a different style and voice.

  For LR, I don't see too much of a difference. Although I do find that some of the classic flaws and classic moves are more tricky and disguised. Still, I wouldn't say they are necessarily more difficult; just different.

  For LG, there are rule equivalency questions which can be quite tricky. The games also become less standardized in the late 60s and 70s series. Otherwise, LG is still LG.

  For RC, obviously there are the introduction of the comparative passages from PT 52 and onward. Also, correct answers are less supported by direct textual support and the questions take on a more LR style than older RC (e.g. more inference-type RC questions). I definitely think RC got harder on the new tests as a result of these things.

  I don't think there are necessarily any "must do" tests in particular. However, I wouldn't want to sit for the test until I had exposed myself to a good amount of the "modern" tests from, say, 62-82. If you're short on time, you may want to re-consider your timeline since Feb is likely too late to apply and you may not have a sufficient amount of time to expose yourself to the proper tests. That said, if you're dead set on a Feb take, you should make sure you are scoring in your desired range consistently on modern LSATs.

  Good luck!
• 3 Likes

  akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  December 2017 9382 karma

  I echo what @"Alex Divine"! Unless you are dead set on February, I think you should take more time. Newer PTs are valuable resources that you shouldn't waste.
• doyouevenLSAT Core Member

  December 2017 edited December 2017 610 karma

  158-165 is my target range for my desired school. I already applied. I start modern LSAT PTs in January after using some individual sections from 40s and 50s timed.

  picking from: 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82 (minimum 8 max 10) at 2 a week. I have all the tests.

  anything left over (81,79,76, 73, 71, 68, 65, 60, 61, 62, 83, 84) i would have for a second take in September '18 take.

  Okay thanks!