Wasting time on sections from 7-28ish? Forum

[lsatprepguy]

I read somewhere on these forums just recently that the earlier prep-tests, specifically those 1-28, were very different from the later prep tests.

About a month ago, I started out doing individual timed sections of LR and RC starting at prep test 7 and working my way up consecutively. (Irrelevant side note: have been doing the games individually by game time since I read that is the best way to learn those.) I planned it all out so about a month before test day, I will be at prep test 42 or so, where I plan to begin taking only full length practice tests.

Is this a terrible approach? I will have seen every section of every test from 7-60ish. But am I wasting time on 7-28, and should that time be allocated elsewhere?

[TMC116]

I read somewhere on these forums just recently that the earlier prep-tests, specifically those 1-28, were very different from the later prep tests.

About a month ago, I started out doing individual timed sections of LR and RC starting at prep test 7 and working my way up consecutively. (Irrelevant side note: have been doing the games individually by game time since I read that is the best way to learn those.) I planned it all out so about a month before test day, I will be at prep test 42 or so, where I plan to begin taking only full length practice tests.

Is this a terrible approach? I will have seen every section of every test from 7-60ish. But am I wasting time on 7-28, and should that time be allocated elsewhere?

It certainly isn't a "waste of time". There are several things to note

1. The LG from 1-38 are harder/more unusual than a lot of later PTs, which have more pure sequencing games and fewer oddball rules and scenarios. This is probably a good thing (though the language in the games changed a bit over time).
2. The LR question types are all the same from PT 7-63 (flaw, MBT, resolve, etc.)
3. The only real difference is the absence of a comparative reading section for RC. This showed up in 2007 i believe...

So, in short, I don't think it's a waste of time at all. Doing PTs 7-28 will allow you to practice the concepts and take the later preptests without having already seen some of the questions during your practice.

[birdlaw117]

The LR is pretty useful, but the questions aren't exactly the same now as they always have been. I felt like they have refined the way they ask questions over the years. LG is different. You use the same basic approach, but the game types aren't exactly the same. I wouldn't say they are either harder or easier... just different. RC is basically the same, in my opinion, minus the comparative passage. The comparative passage is usually pretty easy, and you can pick up some time on it, so getting used to RC sections without the comparative passage won't hurt you.

Just make sure you save the new ones until last and you'll be fine. You'll be able to spot the changing methodology as you go. Plus, the added benefit of seeing the different styles of tests is you'll be more prepared/less caught off guard if there is a strange LR question or whatever on your real exam.

tl;dr version: I don't think doing the old ones, as long as you do those first, will hurt you in any way.

[lsatprepguy]

Ok, thanks guys for the quick response.

The LR is pretty useful, but the questions aren't exactly the same now as they always have been. I felt like they have refined the way they ask questions over the years.

One of the most surprising things in the earlier LR sections (I don't know if it persists in the later ones because I have not seen them yet) is the way in which they ask the questions seems so ridiculous sometimes. It seems like the questions that I have been missing and the reasoning behind them would be so much easier had they not been convoluted with complex and unnecessarily verbose sentences.

I really hope that when you say they have refined the questions, that this is one of the aspects that has been refined. haha.

[birdlaw117]

Ok, thanks guys for the quick response.

The LR is pretty useful, but the questions aren't exactly the same now as they always have been. I felt like they have refined the way they ask questions over the years.

One of the most surprising things in the earlier LR sections (I don't know if it persists in the later ones because I have not seen them yet) is the way in which they ask the questions seems so ridiculous sometimes. It seems like the questions that I have been missing and the reasoning behind them would be so much easier had they not been convoluted with complex and unnecessarily verbose sentences.

I really hope that when you say they have refined the questions, that this is one of the aspects that has been refined. haha.

I honestly don't remember the specifics, just that I felt they were more refined. It's possible that could be part of it, but another part is that you may just get used to reading their convoluted sentences and questions. Practice, practice, practice. That's how you make big improvements on the LSAT.

[Ocean64]

I've noticed that some PTs have sections that are difficult and sometimes flat-out bad IMO. PT B LG section from super prep for example, or PT 28 1st LR section...i wonder who's the SOB who wrote/put together some of these questions/sections.