Top Law Schools

Has LR changed in difficulty with newer tests. I personally found the new LR very slightly easier, but I have only taken one post 40 test.

I just hate the old school questions such "Evaluate the argument", and it does not seem like the older tests warm you up quite as much with easy questions. However, I am comparing the 1-10's with the upper 20's-mid 30's.

I think they have similar underlying structures they test for - if you reduced them down to a mathematical diagram, new and old would look pretty much identical. However, I feel that newer ones are written with more precision, so it is a bit easier to figure out what that structure is. So, I voted for a slight decrease in difficulty. Hope that makes sense. I'm talking about the last few years vs. early 2000s and older.

So the newer ones are are designed with greater clarity in mind? I have heard some people say they longer and more confusing, and then I have heard others say the older ones involved longer passages. One of the good things about the older ones is that some involve 2 questions.

I don't know if they're easier or harder, but I think the newer ones tend to play towards certain strengths while the older ones didn't, which is why some people find new ones easier while others find them harder. I've probably taken every pt and I find older ones easier--not because they actually have some quality that makes them easier, but because i took so many old pt that I became used to spotting wrong answer choices with them.

I think it would be safe to say that the stimulii have become easier/clearer while the wrong answer choices have become increasingly harder to spot/sneakier.

In the end, it "balances" the overall difficulty, but not for those that got their lr strength from spotting the wrong choices.

If the newer questions are harder, than I am scared shitless. I am pretty sure I got 17 on the LR's on Practice test #9, but the curve for a 160 was only a 70 I think.

So if LR is not more difficult, why are the curves often so much easier?

jason8821 wrote:I just hate the old school questions such "Evaluate the argument", and it does not seem like the older tests warm you up quite as much with easy questions. However, I am comparing the 1-10's with the upper 20's-mid 30's.

old ones (ie 20s-early 40s) were definitely much tougher to read through and also longer.

you will never get a consensus on these polls. each person has their own difficulties with either LG/RC/LR, but hopefully not the writing sample.

GATORTIM wrote:you will never get a consensus on these polls. each person has their own difficulties with either LG/RC/LR, but hopefully not the writing sample.

What kind of people do you would be better/worse at the newer questions?

Although this is a huge generalization, and probably the result of wishful thinking but is it possible that someone who has a greater inclination for math while not being a real strong reader would be better at the newer ones due to the fact that the question/answer choices are not as ambiguous, and the argument structure is not so convoluted in overly wordy passages?