Dany wrote:Because it's a diagnostic? I think it's useful for seeing what an actual LSAT is like, reading through the questions, picking out what will and won't be difficult for you to study, etc. There's no sense in cutting yourself off halfway through a section and feeling like a failure the first time. First comes accuracy, then speed, and I don't think that the timed element of the exam is of the utmost importance when you're first starting out. So saying an untimed diagnostic "means nothing" is just silly. Maybe timed works better for some people, but an untimed diagnostic was useful to me.
Ok - like I said, we just have different values of diagnostics. You prefer a test that will provide an introduction to the test while not being demoralizing. I think the value of a diagnostic test shows you where your strengths and weaknesses are while being constrained to test-like conditions. I guess I could buy it if you didn't score the test, but instead just used it as a question-by-question review. So instead of noting that you got a 163 on your diagnostic, you noted that you struggled with parallel reasoning, did well with linear games, struggled with matching games, and crushed science-type RC passages. Doing this provides some in-depth info on what you're good at, without scoring you against scores derived from timed tests.
I think one of the risks of using an untimed score of your first diagnostic is that it gives you an overly-optimistic reading of where your competencies are. And if I'm faced with two different tests - one that will cause me to underprepare and one that will cause me to overprepare, I'll probably choose the second for something as important as the LSAT. I think I've sufficiently derailed this thread. GL OP.