more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

rachue
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:07 pm

more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

Postby rachue » Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:51 pm

OK, I've asked this before to a test prep company and they told me that since the test is so standardized, it shouldn't really vary in difficulty from year to year (otherwise that would defeat the purpose of being able to use it as a standard of measure, at least for a 5 year period of time). However, I've done significantly better on tests from 2000ish than ones from 2008-09 (as in, like a ten point difference, so pretty significant). Has anyone else had this happen to them? Were they really harder or am I just imagining it?

User avatar
paul34
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

Postby paul34 » Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:07 pm

...
Last edited by paul34 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

rachue
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

Postby rachue » Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:10 pm

OK, so it's not just me that the LG have DEFINITELY felt harder. Also, I think the RC is more nuanced as well. Yesterday I did a PT from 2009. I got -3 on the RC, but a -0 in RC passages from 94 that I used as my experimental.

So frustrating! If only we had taken this test even five years ago! haha

imjustjoking22
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:46 am

Re: more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

Postby imjustjoking22 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:44 am

I thought it was generally agreed that the newer LGs were easier?

I wouldn't think about it too much... I think for most people their scores stay pretty consistent, so it may be that you just need more exposure to questions before your scores even out (rather than there being a big change in difficulty).

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

Postby paulshortys10 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:42 am

imjustjoking22 wrote:I thought it was generally agreed that the newer LGs were easier?

I wouldn't think about it too much... I think for most people their scores stay pretty consistent, so it may be that you just need more exposure to questions before your scores even out (rather than there being a big change in difficulty).


Newer PT's are MUCH easier than Pt's in the 20's and 30's.....The only exception would be PT 62, which is hard as shit

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5690
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

Postby Easy-E » Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:58 am

There are some brutal games in the 30s. The record store one, the gem one (threw me at least), that one with the Suderton doctors where one of the rules made the game's diagram flawed. I haven't done too many recent ones, but for June '07 I found the first three easy and the last one very tricky, though I'm bad with that game type (in and out I believe).

User avatar
clouds101
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s?

Postby clouds101 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:02 am

Compared to the rare games sprinkled in the earlier games, I think the recent games are easier to diagram and visualize. However, I think LG games from the 60s are harder in the sense that the questions are freaking time-consuming, esp with the introduction of the new question type (if we take out this rule, which one of these would be a good replacement). I've also noticed that there are a lot more global questions (must be true, cannot be true).

For RC, I agree with OP that it's more nuanced and that I have to be more skeptical of my initial reaction to answer choices.

For LR... does anyone find the weaken/strengthen questions to be more convoluted than the older ones? For instance, the PAH regulation question from PT 53 #10 Section 4....the correct answer counters the opposite team's contention while allowing for the opposite person's position to be true. That's pretty subtle, especially for a question so early in the section.

Edit: that example is a flaw. Here's a good example: PT 53 #8 Section 1, here's the url http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q8-doctor-in-three-separate-studies-t817.html?sid=b797c0e949f3cc3e3ea19015ca65d122




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chipotle85 and 4 guests