Top Law Schools

Has anybody here noticed any specific characteristics of LR in the 60s PT range that differentiate them from previous LR sections? I have hit a road bump in the LR in the 60s, which really surprised me because the questions tend to be much less bulky then LR in the 1-38 PT range.

Thanks!

You are not alone.

I haven't done a ton in the 60s, but the late 50s really got to me. I pretty much went like this:

Beginning prep: -10-15 (combined)
Mid prep: -0, -1 (PT 30-40)
Later: -5-6 (PT 50s)
Now: -4 ish

I've completely stopped doing any LR or CR from tests before 52, and that has helped significantly.

To me, the earlier problems were clearer, because it was more black-and-white. There was stuff that was completely extraneous, and stuff that was not. It's a lot more difficult for me to determine what is necessary information in the new tests. The answers also seem to come down a lot more frequently between two good ones, and the bad answers are more difficult to exclude.

The view among some (many?) of us is that 60s LR is "cleaner," for lack of a better term. It's not that they are easier or harder, per se, but just that there are fewer questions that really leave you pounding your head into the table even after you know the answer. 50s and 40s have more questions that are "sneaky" (especially in strengthen/weaken), and also more questions that are open to multiple interpretations (see, e.g., 54.4.13 and the discussion on the MLSAT board). LR is not my strength, but I'm a consistent -3/-4 in the 60s and several questions worse in the 50s and 40s -- and it's not just a function of getting better, because the 60s have been scattered throughout my studying.

vuthy wrote:The view among some (many?) of us is that 60s LR is "cleaner," for lack of a better term. It's not that they are easier or harder, per se, but just that there are fewer questions that really leave you pounding your head into the table even after you know the answer. 50s and 40s have more questions that are "sneaky" (especially in strengthen/weaken), and also more questions that are open to multiple interpretations (see, e.g., 54.4.13 and the discussion on the MLSAT board). LR is not my strength, but I'm a consistent -3/-4 in the 60s and several questions worse in the 50s and 40s -- and it's not just a function of getting better, because the 60s have been scattered throughout my studying.

Agreed. The 60s questions I would say are also a lot more conducive to attacking with current study methods (MLSAT, PS etc.).

There's a discussion of 54.4.13 on a board, why? Now some of the MBT from from PT1-15 on Cambridge's MBT Packet in the 4 level, those things are terribly worded.

dcruss wrote:

There's a discussion of 54.4.13 on a board, why?

The "apparent conflict" isn't so apparent. Two equally plausible paradoxes, leading to two different answer choices (A and D). Just not something I've seen as much in 60s, which seem to be tighter.