Which Practice Tests to Buy? Forum

[analytic_philosopher]

I'm really sorry if this topic has been done to death, but I couldn't find it, so here goes:

Other than the individual prep tests (which cost $8 each), LSAC offers three "compilation" volumes that contain 10 tests each at a more reasonable price:

10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests ™
PrepTests 7, 9-16, 18

10 More Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests ™
PrepTests 19-28

The Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests ™
PrepTests 29-38

10 New Actual LSAT PrepTests w/Comparative Reading ™
PrepTests 52-61

Obviously the most recent one is an excellent buy and I should definitely get it. But what about the older ones? It sucks that they are all older than test number 38. Would it be better for me to spend my money on buying tests 40 - 52 (which seems not to be included in any of the compilation volumes)?

Thanks for the advice.

[Nova]

Get 62 through 66 individually for sure.

28-38 is great, IMO.

Every LSAT is useful if you have the time.

The LSAT has not really changed much over time. The underlying logic is the same.

[gaud]

Every LSAT is useful if you have the time.

[analytic_philosopher]

Get 62 through 66 individually for sure.

28-38 is great, IMO.

Every LSAT is useful if you have the time.

Right, I'm definitely going to buy 62 - 66 individually because those tests aren't part of any compilation. And, I'm definitely going to get the 52 - 61 compilation. So, that's 15 tests that I'm definitely going to get.

But in addition, I probably want another 10 or 15 tests. I'm wondering if I should go with the older compilations? Or instead buy tests 40 - 52 individually?

Every LSAT is useful if you have the time.

I don't disagree. But realistically, I will only have time to do a certain amount of tests. My goal is about 30 or 35 tests. So, I'm just trying to decide which ones would be optimal.

[gaud]

Focus on the more recent tests. So, if you do 30, it will best to get tests 36-66 (or however many there are now).

[Nightrunner]

Focus on the more recent tests. So, if you do 30, it will best to get tests 36-66 (or however many there are now).

This is good advice.

[analytic_philosopher]

Focus on the more recent tests. So, if you do 30, it will best to get tests 36-66 (or however many there are now).

Thanks. That's what I was thinking also.

This means that the only people who should be doing the older tests are people who are planning to do more than 30 practice tests?

It sucks that LSAC doesn't offer compilations of more recent tests like it does for the old tests - obviously they would rather have you pay $8 a pop.

[Nova]

Focus on the more recent tests. So, if you do 30, it will best to get tests 36-66 (or however many there are now).

Thanks. That's what I was thinking also.

This means that the only people who should be doing the older tests are people who are planning to do more than 30 practice tests?

Well, if you want to take 30 practice test, then youll need more material. Youll need the older ones for drilling and working individual sections when you are not taking full PTs.

The implication was that you only wanted to do 30 tests of material, not that you wanted to take 30 pts.

[gaud]

Focus on the more recent tests. So, if you do 30, it will best to get tests 36-66 (or however many there are now).

Thanks. That's what I was thinking also.

This means that the only people who should be doing the older tests are people who are planning to do more than 30 practice tests?

More or less, yes. The idea is that the more recent tests are going to be more like what you'll actually see on test day. A lot of people will save the more recent tests for their full-length practice sessions and use the older ones for drilling of individual sections.

EDIT: scooped by Nova

[analytic_philosopher]

Focus on the more recent tests. So, if you do 30, it will best to get tests 36-66 (or however many there are now).

Thanks. That's what I was thinking also.

This means that the only people who should be doing the older tests are people who are planning to do more than 30 practice tests?

More or less, yes. The idea is that the more recent tests are going to be more like what you'll actually see on test day. A lot of people will save the more recent tests for their full-length practice sessions and use the older ones for drilling of individual sections.

EDIT: scooped by Nova

Ok, got it.

For drilling, I was planning to use those bible books. Would that be adequate for drilling?

[Nova]

Ok, got it.

For drilling, I was planning to use those bible books. Would that be adequate for drilling?

These?

http://www.amazon.com/PowerScores-LSAT- ... 0982661827

Yeah, thats fine.

[gaud]

For drilling, I was planning to use those bible books. Would that be adequate for drilling?

Not unless you're talking about the PS workbooks (I think that's what they're called). You're definitely going to want to drill more than what is in the regular bibles. Have you looked at Pithypike's Guide? http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... =6&t=41657 It should give you an idea of what an ideal study plan will look like.

You use the regular bibles to learn the basics. Practice the basics while drilling older test sections (initially untimed). Then, once you've got a grasp of it all, you move on to timed, full-length tests for complete mastery.

[analytic_philosopher]

For drilling, I was planning to use those bible books. Would that be adequate for drilling?

Not unless you're talking about the PS workbooks (I think that's what they're called). You're definitely going to want to drill more than what is in the regular bibles. Have you looked at Pithypike's Guide? http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... =6&t=41657 It should give you an idea of what an ideal study plan will look like.

You use the regular bibles to learn the basics. Practice the basics while drilling older test sections (initially untimed). Then, once you've got a grasp of it all, you move on to timed, full-length tests for complete mastery.

Thanks; I did look at the guide but I didn't read it closely. I thought it would be more useful for me once I actually got started with studying.

On a different note - and sorry if I come across as cocky - but are there any books that are specifically geared for students aiming for 180? I took a diagnostic test in which I scored 175 and my educational background has already prepared me quite well for these types of questions (B.A. Philosophy & Mathematics, MSc. Logic). I really don't think I need to be reading an intro to logic or anything like that. What I need more than anything is to understand the various different types of LSAT questions and drill excessively.

Would the bibles still be good for someone like me? Are they focused more on drills? Or explanations / strategy?

These?

http://www.amazon.com/PowerScores-LSAT- ... 0982661827

Yeah, thats fine.

No, sorry, I've never seen those before. Could you please explain what that book is? Nevermind, I just read the description on Amazon. Awesome, this seems like the perfect drilling material.

I was talking about these bibles:

http://www.amazon.com/PowerScore-LSAT-L ... lsat+bible
http://www.amazon.com/PowerScore-LSAT-L ... lsat+bible
http://www.amazon.com/PowerScore-LSAT-R ... lsat+bible

[theprophet89]

It would be far more cost effective to do 19-38 and 52-66, rather than 36-66. The book containing tests 40-50 is over 3x as expensive as LSAC-published books ($20 for 29-58 vs. $70+ for 41-50).

[NoodleyOne]

Manhattan is geared to high scorers. That being said a cold diag of 175 may make most of that irrelevant. You may just want to drill and pt to get more familiar.

[Nova]

3.Would the bibles still be good for someone like me? Are they focused more on drills? Or explanations / strategy?

2. No, sorry, I've never seen those before. Could you please explain what that book is? Nevermind, I just read the description on Amazon. Awesome, this seems like the perfect drilling material.

1. I was talking about these bibles:

1. Those are the basic guides that Gaud correctly said are not sufficient for drilling. They only have a handful of questions for each question type.

2. Those work books are every question from either 1-20 or 21-40 organized by question type (for LR), game type (AR), or passage type (RC). Other companies offter them as well.

3. I agree with Noodle. M is more sophisticated and is tailored for higher scorers.

[gaud]

Manhattan is geared to high scorers. That being said a cold diag of 175 may make most of that irrelevant. You may just want to drill and pt to get more familiar.

+1

[analytic_philosopher]

Ok, I just spent the last 30 minutes researching the differences between Powerscore and Manhattan and have come to the conclusion that Manhattan would be better for me. However, I'm also going to get the LG bible from Powerscore as an additional reference just because that particular book has an unmatched reputation.

Now, for drilling:

The drill books suggested by Nova seemed to be perfect: http://www.amazon.com/PowerScores-LSAT- ... 0982661827

But I'm unable to find the equivalent from Manhattan.

Should I just skip these and use the real LSATs (older tests) for drilling?

[NoodleyOne]

Cambridge is credited for drill packets.

[Nova]

Cambridge is credited for drill packets.

Agreed. Thats what I used, and really liked them. The catagories are basically the same and only slightly different, so I would just go with the cheapest.

http://www.amazon.com/LSAT-Logical-Reas ... stion+type

Should I just skip these and use the real LSATs (older tests) for drilling?

You could just use old PTs for drilling. That works just fine, but its a lot less convenient.

Here is AR by type: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=50657

Here is LR by type (stickied): http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=108425

[analytic_philosopher]

Cambridge is credited for drill packets.

Agreed. Thats what I used, and really liked them. The catagories are basically the same and only slightly different, so I would just go with the cheapest.

http://www.amazon.com/LSAT-Logical-Reas ... stion+type

Should I just skip these and use the real LSATs (older tests) for drilling?

You could just use old PTs for drilling. That works just fine, but its a lot less convenient.
Here is AR by type: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... e#p1042536

Here is LR by type (stickied): http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=108425

Thanks for the link but these are rather expensive; $50 a piece is $150 total. The Powerscore product that you linked to earlier in this thread seemed to be the exact same thing for less than half the price. Is there any reason you think the extra cost of the Cambridge books is justified?

Nevermind: The price difference isn't as significant as I thought. Would it be more advisable to get a more recent volume so that the questions are closer to today's questions?

[analytic_philosopher]

Cambridge also has books for drilling the Manhattan types:

Logic Games Strategy Guide Workbook (LinkRemoved)
Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide Workbook (LinkRemoved)

Would it be better to use these instead of the regular practice books?

[Nova]

You can mix and match several differnt ways. For instances:

PS 1-20;Drill by type; $90
28-38; Drill by section; $20
39-51; PT; $104
52-61; PT; $20
62-66; PT; $40
M Bundle; $70
Total: $344 not including shipping

Bundle to save $40: http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-LSAT-Se ... 12-6418442

[Nova]

Cambridge also has books for drilling the Manhattan types:

Logic Games Strategy Guide Workbook (LinkRemoved)
Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide Workbook (LinkRemoved)

Would it be better to use these instead of the regular practice books?

That would certainly keep everything more consistent.

[analytic_philosopher]

Something seems to be wrong here with the Cambridge books.

PT 51 - 60 costs $110
http://astore.amazon.com/cambridgelsat- ... 1453831002

PT 51 - 65 costs $33
http://astore.amazon.com/cambridgelsat- ... 1937707121