LSAT Difficulty per test?

nickbentley
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:21 pm

LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby nickbentley » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:42 pm

Hi,

I have acquired practice tests 7,9 10-45...

I have been told that the test has changed over time...


I took my first diagnostic at 160 yesterday. I'm registered for PowerScore's full length class starting in two weeks. I want to take the October LSAT

Ideally, I'd cover all of the practice tests, but I don't think I'll get them all done. Which tests should I begin working through? Was there a certain time when the tests dramatically changed? What are the differences here?

*it was practice test 9 that I did my diagnostic with, the test was strictly timed.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby 3|ink » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:45 pm

The earlier tests are easier no matter how you look at it. This is because the earlier test takers had fewer examples (previous tests) to learn from. Start with the earlier tests and gradually move up, IMO.

User avatar
DorianGray89
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:19 am

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby DorianGray89 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:50 pm

How do you know which test is which number?

User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby booboo » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:53 pm

DorianGray89 wrote:How do you know which test is which number?


You can look it up.

I bookmarked this a while ago for ease:

http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/pub_ident.cfm

To OP: I think going through the early exams to get the format down and learning what the LSAT expects from is what you should do first. Then, when you are ready to start preparing for something you may see similarly on test day, the most recent PrepTests are what you should focus on.

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby tomwatts » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:05 pm

The test has gotten more regular over time, among other things. Old tests have weird puzzle questions. Newer tests have consistent, LSAT-style questions. There was never a major shift.

As has been suggested already, practice on older tests at first to get some familiarity with the nature of the logic on the LSAT, and then turn to newer tests (you definitely want to do 50-60, and if you can get in 40-49, that's great) to see what the current state of the test is.

I'm kind of excited, because I just got my hands on PT 60, so I'm going to work through it in the near future. Maybe I'll post some idle musings about it as I go.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby 09042014 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:06 pm

booboo wrote:
DorianGray89 wrote:How do you know which test is which number?


You can look it up.

I bookmarked this a while ago for ease:

http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/pub_ident.cfm

To OP: I think going through the early exams to get the format down and learning what the LSAT expects from is what you should do first. Then, when you are ready to start preparing for something you may see similarly on test day, the most recent PrepTests are what you should focus on.


QF booboo sighting.

User avatar
KibblesAndVick
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:29 am

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby KibblesAndVick » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:18 pm

The old tests had harder logic games IMO. Some people have suggested that the newer tests have started using more formal logic or "air tight" logic in the logical reasoning sections. The new reading comp sections have a comparative part where you have to read two short passages about the same subject and compare and contrast them.

As was already said, take the old tests first to get a handle on things. You can also cut them into pieces so you can add a 5th experimental section to the newer practice tests.

If you search the forums you'll be able to find discussions of how the curve has changed over time. The number of questions you can miss and still get a 170 has, generally, been smaller in recent years. This doesn't necessarily make the test harder but it is different.

nickbentley
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby nickbentley » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:43 pm

Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close? :-)

User avatar
KibblesAndVick
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:29 am

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby KibblesAndVick » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:48 pm

nickbentley wrote:Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close? :-)


It would have been close to 160 no matter what test you took. But the name of the game is perfection so people are OCD about even very minor changes in the LSAT.

160 is a fine starting point. It's all about practice. Practice. Practice. Practice.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby 3|ink » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:54 pm

KibblesAndVick wrote:
nickbentley wrote:Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close? :-)


It would have been close to 160 no matter what test you took. But the name of the game is perfection so people are OCD about even very minor changes in the LSAT.

160 is a fine starting point. It's all about practice. Practice. Practice. Practice.


I disagree. I think the later tests are definitely more tricky. The LSAC expects that later testers have an advantage over the earlier testers because they have more material to study.

Don't look for too much meaning in scores early on. The starting point is not as important as the rate/level of improvement. Take more tests and see if/how you progress.

nickbentley
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: LSAT Difficulty per test?

Postby nickbentley » Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:39 pm

3|ink wrote:
KibblesAndVick wrote:
nickbentley wrote:Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close? :-)


It would have been close to 160 no matter what test you took. But the name of the game is perfection so people are OCD about even very minor changes in the LSAT.

160 is a fine starting point. It's all about practice. Practice. Practice. Practice.


I disagree. I think the later tests are definitely more tricky. The LSAC expects that later testers have an advantage over the earlier testers because they have more material to study.

Don't look for too much meaning in scores early on. The starting point is not as important as the rate/level of improvement. Take more tests and see if/how you progress.


Cool. I'll take a recent test later today. then compare...

Thanks




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests