Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

The LR from the "10 actual" book should not be used if you are shooting for a 170

Don't use them at all
0
No votes
Use them for LG only
0
No votes
Use them for all sections
12
100%
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
mac35352
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:17 pm

Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby mac35352 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:21 pm

Any thoughts about this statement?
The LR from the "10 actual" book should not be used if you are shooting for a 170. They are looser than newer problems are. Using old LG's are fine.
I should add: For drilling specific question types and not for an accurate diagnostic. Also, not as a replacement for the more recent preptest.
Last edited by mac35352 on Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bhan87
Posts: 850
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:08 pm

Re: Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby bhan87 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:25 pm

You should do all the tests included, but just don't use it as a gauge for how you'd do on a recent LSAT. Many of the common question types have remained consistent for all 3 sections but there have been variations on difficulty amongst sections and emphasis on types that appear. For instance, RC has gotten harder and certain types of LR questions just don't appear very often anymore (the more recent you get the more streamlined the questions feel)

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13918
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby rinkrat19 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:28 pm

Anecdotally: I used them. I got a 171. I noticed very little difference.

NYCLSATTutor
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:22 pm

Re: Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby NYCLSATTutor » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:35 pm

I will tell you right now that most people will disagree with my statement. I have some work to do tonight so I don't want to spend ages explaining it, but here is the gist of it.

The newer questions are well written. Extremely well written. If you can think of a "whoah what about X" for the new questions, whatever X is may well be important. X is a feature, not a bug, because the newer questions rarely, rarely have bugs.

This is not true of the old questions. Sometimes they want you to take as true things that seem a bit dubious. Sometimes you might think "hey what about X" and X isn't a feature, it is a bug. Its something that, because they aren't as well written, was just missed when the question was being written.

Furthermore, the testmakers have a certain style to the way they ask questions. The style has changed over time. There are certain assumptions about life (general knowledge) that you are allowed to bring in. This has also changed over time.

By the way, all of this ONLY applies to the logical reasoning.

User avatar
dextermorgan
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby dextermorgan » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:38 pm

mac35352 wrote:Any thoughts about this statement?
The LR from the "10 actual" book should not be used if you are shooting for a 170. They are looser than newer problems are. Using old LG's are fine.
I should add: For drilling specific question types and not for an accurate diagnostic. Also, not as a replacement for the more recent preptest.

That statement is stupid.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby suspicious android » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:07 pm

NYCLSATTutor wrote:Its something that, because they aren't as well written, was just missed when the question was being written.


Care to offer a specific example?

User avatar
mac35352
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby mac35352 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:08 pm

suspicious android wrote:
NYCLSATTutor wrote:Its something that, because they aren't as well written, was just missed when the question was being written.


Care to offer a specific example?

I'm waiting on this!
I want to know how the earlier LR questions are not as well written as the newer ones.

HBK
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: Usefulness of "10 Actual" books

Postby HBK » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:21 pm

I used the first set of 10 as filler for my 5th section on practice exams. If I missed more in the 5th section than I did in any of my 4 graded sections, I would use that negative number in calculating my score (made me not slack off on the section I knew wouldn't be graded).

The other two books were fine to prep with, the first set of ten was a little different than what you see now.

Also, if I just wanted to do a quick 25 or 30 minute timed section to work on pacing, I would use a throwaway section from the first set of ten.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Google [Bot], Instrumental, ltowns1 and 5 guests