.

Colorado10
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:49 pm

.

Postby Colorado10 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:32 am

.
Last edited by Colorado10 on Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

bjc314
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Most Recent PTs Resemble the Oldest PTs?

Postby bjc314 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:14 pm

I've done 25 to 52 so far, and in my opinion the test has changed significantly. It seems that on the older tests games were much more difficult, and LR and RC were relatively easy. On the new tests, it seems that games are much easier and RC is especially difficult.

kpuc
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Most Recent PTs Resemble the Oldest PTs?

Postby kpuc » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:51 pm

I find the earlier games easier, but that may be because my mind just works differently.

User avatar
typ3
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:04 am

Re: Most Recent PTs Resemble the Oldest PTs?

Postby typ3 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:06 am

kpuc wrote:I find the earlier games easier, but that may be because my mind just works differently.



Older Games are easier for me.

Older RC is slightly easier.

LR is about the same. I think 55+ are a little more difficult.

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Re: Most Recent PTs Resemble the Oldest PTs?

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:34 am

I have only done up to PT56 (taking 57 today) but it seems to me that regarding LG, the newer tests aren't necessarily easier, they just don't tend to have that one overarching inference that can make or break the whole game (something that showed up every once in a while in the pre-30 PTs). there are plenty of examples of insanely easy LG sections from early tests too (look at PT4, for example). RC is definitely harder, I think almost exclusively due to question wording. LR is different, I for one find it a bit easier. I think the difference comes in that with a wider pool of applicants LSAC has really cut down on outside knowledge. Two examples come to mind. Both are PR questions from pre-20 tests:

One was, and I'm paraphrasing: "A letter to the editor, signed by someone named Sophie, claiming to be a physics professor at a public university arrived at the editor's desk today. The editor believes there is a 19-1 chance that the letter came from a man, since the editor knows that 95% of professors of such departments are male." -- The answer was something along the lines of: "Jane assumed that the animal she saw flying between two trees at the zoo yesterday was likely a mammal because she knows that 85% of the animals in the zoo are mammals." Why? Well, Sophie is most commonly a female name right? And flying is most commonly an attribute of non-mammals? The latter wold hold on a PT today, the former, not so much when you consider international students who may not have knowledge of the genders associated with various names.

The other was: "The only plants in the garden are tulips. The only tulips in the garden are tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden are tall."
--This is faulty reasoning according to LSAC
The answer was: "The only primates in the zoo are gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo are small gorillas. So the only primates in the zoo are small."
Again, that one knows that a tall tulip is still a generally small plant, regardless of whether it is deemed "tall" relies on outside botanical knowledge (however basic) that probably would not fly on one of today's PTs.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amiliatoe, Bing [Bot], earldasquirel, Vino.Veritas, Voyager, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests