13 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:25 am
StructuresAndForces wrote:Sorry if this has been covered somewhere else, but at the moment I have only done PTs 7-14 and am a bit worried that they may not accurately predict my potential score due to earlier tests being easier or harder than more recent ones. What is the consensus on this? How do the early PTs compare to more recent ones?
Don't waste your times with taking those PTs. Drill LR question types and LG game types, and complete each RC section on its own, and you'll end up seeing all of the material in a much more effective manner.
That said, the material in PTs before 40 aren't necessarily more easy or harder, just slightly different in certain areas (LG has a few kooky game types, LR questions are subtly different.. RC is pretty consistent though).
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:25 pm
For me, the earlier PT's are easier for LR although they're worded weird. I took some of the recent PT's (52-56) to start with and I found the LG and RC to be easier funnily enough then compared to doing pt's 21-24. I'm not sure why but I find comparative reading easier to interpret.
Last edited by DivineJustice on Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:46 pm
Otunga wrote:I find LR easier on the newer tests, LG about the same, and RC harder on the newer tests.
Agreed. Old LR questions were a lot wordier, on average, than the newer ones. I'm not sure if they were necessarily harder or easier from a logic perspective, but there was definitely more content to read.
RC has gotten harder for sure, IMO. Not so much the passages themselves, but the questions (and answer choices) now are much, much more subtle than they used to be.
LG is about the same difficulty-wise. Only real difference is that there were some real oddball games in those first 10 or 15 tests that apparently got phased out. Much more standard now.