Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Isosceles
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:13 pm

Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Isosceles » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:42 pm

Hi all,

I'm a long-time lurker who has been helped immensely by these boards, particularly the LSAT prep forum. I'm a retester from June, and my problem is that after a long string of retesting all the materials from maybe the mid-40s pretest, I felt like I was finally ready to simulate to the best of my abilities the actual test by taking previously unseen PT 70. I was feeling pretty confident because the last time I took PTs in the 60s, I didn't do so well (which caused me to delay the OCT test). Second time around I scored pretty well on them, around a mean of 174 with 172 and 177 as outliers.

When I took PT 70 for the first time, LG and RC went as expected (-0,-4), but I got walloped by LR. -4 on the first section, -7 on the second. Before, I was rarely getting more than three more per section wrong on LR. Usually I average -2 per section. Going through some of the previous topics, I've noticed people talking about how LR on the later tests is more subtle. I definitely got that feeling, like understanding it was a flaw question or a weakening question just wasn't good enough anymore. I also felt like there were more trap answers. My question now is, having exhausted all of my recent testing material, does anyone have any tips about how to study for this slightly new LR? I've been drilling the most difficult LR Cambridge book, but I'm extremely nervous because I've devoted the last four months exclusively to this most recent test and this is making me feel like it was all for naught.

User avatar
westjr
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:19 am

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby westjr » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:56 pm

I have no experience with PT 70 because I took what became PT 69 and then never touched the LSAT again. However, I think this is your problem:
Isosceles wrote:I'm extremely nervous.


Dude, you were PTing consistently in the 170s on the 60s. Stay calm, stay relaxed. We all have bad days on PTs, and you absolutely cannot let a bad PT mess up your mojo going into the real exam.

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Otunga » Fri Nov 29, 2013 2:20 pm

Isosceles wrote:Hi all,

I'm a long-time lurker who has been helped immensely by these boards, particularly the LSAT prep forum. I'm a retester from June, and my problem is that after a long string of retesting all the materials from maybe the mid-40s pretest, I felt like I was finally ready to simulate to the best of my abilities the actual test by taking previously unseen PT 70. I was feeling pretty confident because the last time I took PTs in the 60s, I didn't do so well (which caused me to delay the OCT test). Second time around I scored pretty well on them, around a mean of 174 with 172 and 177 as outliers.

When I took PT 70 for the first time, LG and RC went as expected (-0,-4), but I got walloped by LR. -4 on the first section, -7 on the second. Before, I was rarely getting more than three more per section wrong on LR. Usually I average -2 per section. Going through some of the previous topics, I've noticed people talking about how LR on the later tests is more subtle. I definitely got that feeling, like understanding it was a flaw question or a weakening question just wasn't good enough anymore. I also felt like there were more trap answers. My question now is, having exhausted all of my recent testing material, does anyone have any tips about how to study for this slightly new LR? I've been drilling the most difficult LR Cambridge book, but I'm extremely nervous because I've devoted the last four months exclusively to this most recent test and this is making me feel like it was all for naught.


I had a very similar experience when I sat for it, except I had a mean of around 172 on the 60s tests (176 or so on retakes). In Oct, I went -14 with -9 on LR. Most advice has been to go back to the Cambridge packets for the LR practice as a lot of the prompts on 70 are wordy just like those and it can get you more acclimated to that style. At the very least, you've seen it before going in and have more of a sense of what to expect on 71 (perhaps a continuance of the wordy prompts).

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:32 pm

Can someone elaborate about the wordiness of test 70 compared to the other tests? Is this a dramatic change? I have not yet taken test 70 - I plan to do that probably Wednesday, as I am working my way up to that test as the final practice test before the real test Dec. 7. Is that a mistake? It sounds like the tests in the high 60s are not good prep for 70?

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Jeffort » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:58 am

AliceAgain wrote:Can someone elaborate about the wordiness of test 70 compared to the other tests? Is this a dramatic change? I have not yet taken test 70 - I plan to do that probably Wednesday, as I am working my way up to that test as the final practice test before the real test Dec. 7. Is that a mistake? It sounds like the tests in the high 60s are not good prep for 70?


Relax, OPs theory is rubbish. He is just stressing out about a PT score and looking for an excuse to blame the lower than expected score on other than his current ability/performance level. He's comparing retest scores to a fresh test score so there really wasn't a score drop, more of an artificial boost with the earlier scores.

The LR questions overall haven't gotten wordier, the overall word/letter count of the sections hasn't changed and there are plenty of small-medium stimulus size questions too, just like usual. When in PT mode with lots of review leading up to test day people tend to mainly only think about traits of questions they missed and get the false perception that there are suddenly more of those than usual because those are magnified in their mind from missing and reviewing them. Modern LR isn't 'New' like OP says, it's just an excuse for his lower than wanted score.

PT70 is just like all the ones in the 60s range, nothing has changed.

OP: If those 170s range scores you mentioned were from your second time taking those PTs, which your post seems to indicate, then they are NOT true indicators of your true ability level under testing conditions. Your PT70 score is a good indicator of your current ability level since its a fresh test you've never seen before and is the most recent. There is nothing different about it from the ones in the 60s range except that you hadn't already taken it once before! If you are judging by inflated PT scores due to having seen some of the materials before, you have been looking at things wrong when evaluating your score range. Getting 170s scores on PTs the second time you've seen the questions does not mean you are 170+ ability level.

Isosceles
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:13 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Isosceles » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:49 am

Thanks everyone for your replies, although I feel that your tone was unwarranted, Jeffort. Tests from the late 40s/early 50s have a different feel than the tests today. I don't believe it would be unreasonable to think that LSAC might be switching it up again. Anyway, thanks again everyone. I suppose in this last week I'll focus on drilling LR extensively. Good luck to all the other Dec testers out there.

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:09 pm

I think too that a big part of actual test performance is attitude. Some people fall apart on test day, some people knock it out of the park.

Fortunately I have always liked standardized tests - I sit there thinking, "I am going to show you how great I am."

Also, you CANNOT let one tough question throw you off. To me, that is the point of taking practice tests. Not to figure out "your true ability under testing conditions." The only way to do that is on the actual test day. But the value of the practice tests is to learn how to take the test - how to roll with the punches, so to speak.

Also, just curious Jeffort, when did you take the LSAT? Did you go to law school? I have noticed that there are a handful of people who have been registered since 2008 or so, and on one hand, maybe that makes them LSAT experts by now; on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here.

User avatar
thewaves
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby thewaves » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:29 pm

It's all about psychology. When I took the test in 2011, I felt like there was a change between PT 50s and PT 60s. Whether or not there was an actual difference, I became comfortable with the more recent tests. This is the best piece of advice I can give you. You can't psych yourself out. Learn the ins and outs of the recent ones if you feel like there is a considerable difference. Confidence!

User avatar
Grond
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:33 am

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Grond » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:32 pm

AliceAgain wrote:I think too that a big part of actual test performance is attitude. Some people fall apart on test day, some people knock it out of the park.

Fortunately I have always liked standardized tests - I sit there thinking, "I am going to show you how great I am."

Also, you CANNOT let one tough question throw you off. To me, that is the point of taking practice tests. Not to figure out "your true ability under testing conditions." The only way to do that is on the actual test day. But the value of the practice tests is to learn how to take the test - how to roll with the punches, so to speak.

Also, just curious Jeffort, when did you take the LSAT? Did you go to law school? I have noticed that there are a handful of people who have been registered since 2008 or so, and on one hand, maybe that makes them LSAT experts by now; on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here.

:D

User avatar
Louis1127
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Louis1127 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:57 pm

AliceAgain wrote:I think too that a big part of actual test performance is attitude. Some people fall apart on test day, some people knock it out of the park.

Fortunately I have always liked standardized tests - I sit there thinking, "I am going to show you how great I am."

Also, you CANNOT let one tough question throw you off. To me, that is the point of taking practice tests. Not to figure out "your true ability under testing conditions." The only way to do that is on the actual test day. But the value of the practice tests is to learn how to take the test - how to roll with the punches, so to speak.

Also, just curious Jeffort, when did you take the LSAT? Did you go to law school? I have noticed that there are a handful of people who have been registered since 2008 or so, and on one hand, maybe that makes them LSAT experts by now; on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here.


What an idiotic comment. Lots of 170 plus scorers are deciding not go to LS. Just because someone does not go to LS does not delegitimize their good LSAT score.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/la ... tinue.html

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:04 pm

Louis1127 wrote:
AliceAgain wrote:I think too that a big part of actual test performance is attitude. Some people fall apart on test day, some people knock it out of the park.

Fortunately I have always liked standardized tests - I sit there thinking, "I am going to show you how great I am."

Also, you CANNOT let one tough question throw you off. To me, that is the point of taking practice tests. Not to figure out "your true ability under testing conditions." The only way to do that is on the actual test day. But the value of the practice tests is to learn how to take the test - how to roll with the punches, so to speak.

Also, just curious Jeffort, when did you take the LSAT? Did you go to law school? I have noticed that there are a handful of people who have been registered since 2008 or so, and on one hand, maybe that makes them LSAT experts by now; on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here.


What an idiotic comment. Lots of 170 plus scorers are deciding not go to LS. Just because someone does not go to LS does not delegitimize their good LSAT score.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/la ... tinue.html


2008 was not now. In fact, if you look at the graph that you'll find at the page you linked to, you will see that in 2008, law school applications were still increasing.

And of course, a good LSAT score is a good LSAT score regardless of whether one ever goes to law school. But I do not know Jeffort's LSAT score.

User avatar
Louis1127
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Louis1127 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:08 pm

Explain to me how someone's 170 or higher is delegitimized by the fact that he/she did not go to HYS AND made a shit ton of money.

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:13 pm

Louis1127 wrote:Explain to me how someone's 170 or higher is delegitimized by the fact that he/she did not go to HYS AND made a shit ton of money.


You are totally missing the point.

The point is, what is Jeffort's (or anyone else's, who spends five years here telling other people how to take the LSAT) score on the LSAT?

Since I don't know his score, I am speculating that if, in 2008, he had an awesome score, more likely than not he would have gone to law school. Do I think this is true of everyone? No, of course not. But I would guess that most people (again, read carefully -- I am not saying all people) who scored really well on the LSAT, especially in 2008, went to law school. And who knows - maybe Jeffort did go to HLS and is making a ton on money, but still hangs out here.

User avatar
Fianna13
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Fianna13 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:17 pm

AliceAgain wrote:I think too that a big part of actual test performance is attitude. Some people fall apart on test day, some people knock it out of the park.

Fortunately I have always liked standardized tests - I sit there thinking, "I am going to show you how great I am."

Also, you CANNOT let one tough question throw you off. To me, that is the point of taking practice tests. Not to figure out "your true ability under testing conditions." The only way to do that is on the actual test day. But the value of the practice tests is to learn how to take the test - how to roll with the punches, so to speak.

Also, just curious Jeffort, when did you take the LSAT? Did you go to law school? I have noticed that there are a handful of people who have been registered since 2008 or so, and on one hand, maybe that makes them LSAT experts by now; on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here.


Eh, I usually hate getting involved in internet drama, but this above really pissed me off. First of all, if you just do a little digging, for example, click on his profile button, you would see he did graduate from USC law. 2nd of all, I'm not sure how long you've been around TLS, but if you click on his previous posts, you would see how much valuable LSAT advices he had contributed to TLS. By those alone, he should be considered to be an expert, in addition to the fact he scored a 99 percentile on his real test. Third, how did you form the connection between LSAT experts and HLS graduates? Those two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Maybe i'm reading your comments negatively, but they really seem to be negative in a way.
Last edited by Fianna13 on Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Louis1127
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Louis1127 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:17 pm

AliceAgain wrote:
Louis1127 wrote:Explain to me how someone's 170 or higher is delegitimized by the fact that he/she did not go to HYS AND made a shit ton of money.


You are totally missing the point.

The point is, what is Jeffort's (or anyone else's, who spends five years here telling other people how to take the LSAT) score on the LSAT?

Since I don't know his score, I am speculating that if, in 2008, he had an awesome score, more likely than not he would have gone to law school. Do I think this is true of everyone? No, of course not. But I would guess that most people (again, read carefully -- I am not saying all people) who scored really well on the LSAT, especially in 2008, went to law school. And who knows - maybe Jeffort did go to HLS and is making a ton on money, but still hangs out here.



Dat search function.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=218099&p=7159487&hilit=diagnostic#p7159487

Edit: AND you flipped flopped on your statement: "on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here".

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:32 pm

Louis1127 wrote:
AliceAgain wrote:
Louis1127 wrote:Explain to me how someone's 170 or higher is delegitimized by the fact that he/she did not go to HYS AND made a shit ton of money.


You are totally missing the point.

The point is, what is Jeffort's (or anyone else's, who spends five years here telling other people how to take the LSAT) score on the LSAT?

Since I don't know his score, I am speculating that if, in 2008, he had an awesome score, more likely than not he would have gone to law school. Do I think this is true of everyone? No, of course not. But I would guess that most people (again, read carefully -- I am not saying all people) who scored really well on the LSAT, especially in 2008, went to law school. And who knows - maybe Jeffort did go to HLS and is making a ton on money, but still hangs out here.



Dat search function.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=218099&p=7159487&hilit=diagnostic#p7159487

Edit: AND you flipped flopped on your statement: "on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here".


"Flipped flopped" - are you a politician in training?

The overall gist of my comment was that we don't know the qualifications of the people who are offering advice here. I probably should not have made it personal to Jeffort, but he was the example at hand.

User avatar
Louis1127
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Louis1127 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:45 pm

AliceAgain wrote:
Louis1127 wrote:
AliceAgain wrote:
Louis1127 wrote:Explain to me how someone's 170 or higher is delegitimized by the fact that he/she did not go to HYS AND made a shit ton of money.


You are totally missing the point.

The point is, what is Jeffort's (or anyone else's, who spends five years here telling other people how to take the LSAT) score on the LSAT?

Since I don't know his score, I am speculating that if, in 2008, he had an awesome score, more likely than not he would have gone to law school. Do I think this is true of everyone? No, of course not. But I would guess that most people (again, read carefully -- I am not saying all people) who scored really well on the LSAT, especially in 2008, went to law school. And who knows - maybe Jeffort did go to HLS and is making a ton on money, but still hangs out here.



Dat search function.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=218099&p=7159487&hilit=diagnostic#p7159487

Edit: AND you flipped flopped on your statement: "on the other hand, if they really were LSAT experts, they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here".


"Flipped flopped" - are you a politician in training?

The overall gist of my comment was that we don't know the qualifications of the people who are offering advice here. I probably should not have made it personal to Jeffort, but he was the example at hand.


Once again, I introduce you to the search function.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=218099&p=7159487&hilit=diagnostic#p7159487Secondly,

Your original statement (the one I quoted) was:

If they were really LSAT experts-------->they would have already graduated from HLS and be raking in the big bucks, not hanging out here.

And you tried to walk back that statement, aka you flip flopped.

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:58 pm

Louis,

I get your point. But you still are missing mine.

I did follow the search result you linked to, where Jeffort states that his LSAT score was a 177. And you are going to say I am "flip flopping" or "waking back my statement," but knowing what Jeffort says his LSAT score was (and again, I am sorry this is about Jeffort personally - I don't have any reason to mistrust him specifically - but anyone could show up here and say his LSAT score is 177) is not the big-picture of what I was talking about.

I did not know Jeffort's LSAT score - and I did not think to search for it, because it was just one piece of the big picture. Which is that we all should take what is offered here with a grain of salt. Even if Jeffort's score was 177, does that mean he knows how other people should study? Jeffort's post (on this thread; again, I did not search all of Jeffort's posts on this whole website) utterly lacks humility - it presumes to have all of the answers for everyone. It's one (very helpful) thing to say, "I did this, it worked for me and it might work for you" but it is another thing to say, as it seems to me Jeffort did to the OP, "I know how this works for everyone."

I am done arguing with you about this. Either you see what is wrong with Jeffort's post or you don't.

Sincerely,
Alice

Isosceles
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:13 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Isosceles » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:32 pm

Alice,

Thanks for your posts on this thread. As you and others have said, I do think confidence is key. Perhaps all of my nervousness to simulate an actual test, I caused myself to miss a few questions that I normally wouldn't have. I won't let this test get me down, and I will try to walk into the test center with utmost confidence next week. I like your "let me show them what I know" attitude. I think that's a good way to look at things. I've put in the preparation, all I have to do now is take a three-hour test to make them sure of my abilities.

I also agree with you about the attitude of certain posters. While this site has been extremely helpful it has always bothered me when some people who ostensibly are here to give advice jump straight to condescension and hostility.

User avatar
mellow
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:07 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby mellow » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:06 pm

While Jeffort may have come off as a bit sharp, he(?) makes valid points. You're comparing retake scores with a new test score. When I retake a test, I'm disappointed if I don't get a 180 because theoretically, I should not be getting any answers wrong if I've been reviewing my answers thoroughly. Take some more fresh PTs so you can see if your score on PT70 was really due to it being "slightly new" or if it actually reflected your current skill level.

That being said, I did think PT70 LR was a bit more wordier and nuanced, but it definitely wasn't different enough to warrant a huge drop.

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:07 pm

Also, OP, check out the recent posts on the December retakers thread. Several people are reporting huge trouble with the LR sections of test 70, as well as just general trouble with perhaps-nervousness-induced declines in PT scores right now.

It's a fine line between fear and excitement. It's easy to be afraid of the LSAT - it's such a ridiculously important test - but even if my body is saying "fear" I am going to walk in excited to be about to slam-dunk the test.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Jeffort » Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:20 am

AliceAgain wrote:Louis,

I get your point. But you still are missing mine.

I did follow the search result you linked to, where Jeffort states that his LSAT score was a 177. And you are going to say I am "flip flopping" or "waking back my statement," but knowing what Jeffort says his LSAT score was (and again, I am sorry this is about Jeffort personally - I don't have any reason to mistrust him specifically - but anyone could show up here and say his LSAT score is 177) is not the big-picture of what I was talking about.

I did not know Jeffort's LSAT score - and I did not think to search for it, because it was just one piece of the big picture. Which is that we all should take what is offered here with a grain of salt. Even if Jeffort's score was 177, does that mean he knows how other people should study? Jeffort's post (on this thread; again, I did not search all of Jeffort's posts on this whole website) utterly lacks humility - it presumes to have all of the answers for everyone. It's one (very helpful) thing to say, "I did this, it worked for me and it might work for you" but it is another thing to say, as it seems to me Jeffort did to the OP, "I know how this works for everyone."

I am done arguing with you about this. Either you see what is wrong with Jeffort's post or you don't.

Sincerely,
Alice


Hey Alice, although I don't understand your motivation I'm flattered that you became interested in knowing more about me and got preoccupied thinking about me today. If you really want to get to know me better, don't be shy, just talk to me and ask whatever questions you want.

I don't understand your sudden focus on me in this thread or the motivation behind the negative presumptions you made and posted as things unknown but possibly true in terms of me, the LSAT and LS especially when the information was literally one click away with my entire TLS background/history also just clicks away ready for investigation by anyone that is curious.

Do you have something personal against me? Why you didn't just click my profile button or do at least a minute of research before deciding to spend part of the afternoon posting speculation with negative presumptions about me in this thread is what I don't understand.

The advice and information I gave that seemed to trigger your 'I should attack his credibility' responses isn't even stuff you need expertise about the LSAT to know is true, and I said it in a straightforward, just the facts non-negative way. OP compared his score from taking PT70 fresh to scores he got on PTs in the 60s range when he RE-took them a second time. His PT70 score was lower than his re-taken tests score range. He concluded the cause for his lower score is that the LR in PT70 is different and harder in a significant way than LR from PTs in the 60s rather than recognizing the obvious real cause for the score difference, the higher scores were inflated because he had taken those tests before. It's really basic cause and effect reasoning, I don't understand how this type of observation could be controversial. When you take the same test form a second time you will perform better because you've seen and read the questions before, so the score is not a reliable measure of actual test day ability with a fresh test. It's pretty obvious common sense so I don't understand why my credibility ever became an issue in your mind unless you are just bored and decided to troll the LSAT board for kicks.

It just seems soo silly that this actually caused some forum drama and dispute. Think about it, when a PT score doesn't go as well as expected, what's the more likely explanation? For whatever reasons (that you should review to figure out) you performed at a lower ability level than you think you actually have, OR, OMG! LSAC seriously changed the LSAT and all the sudden made it harder to get the same scaled scores compared to tests from the last three years! I must start a thread and tell everyone about the new LR to warn them! The questions are longer now, PT60s aren't reliable or representative anymore for your score range! We're doomed and prepped wrong for the 'new LR' arrrrgggg, panic everyone!

Err, no. Jumping to the conclusion that the LSAT suddenly changed to explain a lower than expected PT score is just plain denial about what really caused the score. Sorry you got offended by me pointing out that claiming the test has suddenly changed to explain a lower score is simply an excuse instead of realizing it was because of performing at a lower ability level. The explanation is laughable and compounded in its silliness when its pushed as true to warn others and spread the word about the 'new LR'. Spreading baseless theories like this a week before test day on a popular LSAT study forum is irresponsible to other test takers since, as already shown in responses, it gets other people freaked out about their own abilities and 'changes' to the test during the last week when they need to work on being calm and trusting in the ways they prepped! Maybe you should have been second guessing OPs qualifications and assertions for concluding and telling others that LR in PT70 is different from that in PTs60-69 rather than me for saying the test hasn't suddenly changed.

It doesn't take an LSAT expert to know that it is a standardized test and that the test cannot and will not suddenly change in a significant way that would make a ~170-175 skill level on PTs60-69 into a ~166-169 skill level on PT70. Any change like that would be altering the scale significantly by changing the actual skill level each scaled score represents, which is the opposite of what standardized tests are designed to be! Whenever someone gets a lower than expected/desired score, its pretty reasonable to conclude the cause is that they performed with a lower ability level instead of OMG! it can't be me, they must have changed the test! I know I'm a 170+ scorer, this test form is soo unfair! lol

But hey, if you want to doubt me and common knowledge about the test to instead give consideration to an obviously flawed theory about the test having suddenly changed in a way that significantly impacts scaled scores from the same test takers because I stated my views with certainty (and some evidence and reasoning too!), that's your choice. It's not cool for people to start posting and supporting blatantly wrong assertions about sudden changes to the LSAT a week before the test since it unnecessarily freaks and stresses other test takers out. I suspected OP was a troll (this thread is his/her 1st post) when I wrote my first post but played nice and posted to make sure legit test takers don't get sucked into believing bad info that can only serve to mess with their heads right before test day. Based on your account also being new and your posts and positions you took, my guess is that you are also just here to troll and try to freak out Dec test takers. Please go back to the off topic areas of the forum to mess around.

If anyone wants to talk about subtle changes in LR sections that have been slowly evolving from the PT40s range up to now, that's a different conversation. There is a decent amount of little things that have been shifting/changing/evolving within the content of certain LR questions and sections over the last ~20-30 PTs that are worth talking about. All those things are individually small little things here and there with various question configurations that have been slowly appearing/slightly changing more and more over long periods of testing cycles, hence no sudden dramatic change and scaled scores are still equivalently comparable across a three year window of all other achieved scores from other test forms.

But saying that all the sudden PT70 is significantly different from PTs60-69 is just OP freaking out about his lower than expected score and not wanting the reason to be that he might not yet be at his target score range. I'd be upset too if I thought I was a solid 170+ and got something in the 160s on a fresh PT this close to test day, but I'd also want reality based advice about interpreting it and evaluating the performance to hopefully figure out what to do to improve more by test day. Letting somebody stay in denial about why a lower than expected PT score happened is not a way to help them.

If me being blunt with my thoughts and relevant information hurts feelings or offends people, I don't know what to do about that since a lot of important information about the LSAT people need to hear to improve and actually achieve a high test day score are things they don't want to hear/things that might go against their beliefs/expectations about themselves at the moment, things that are painful to hear, etc. I don't sugar coat LSAT advice when it comes to trying to achieve a high score, the LSAT hurts peoples feelings, bummer, it's a hard test and doesn't care about feelings, only logic. Better get used to it because LS is even more brutal. The person needs to review their performance to see what they did wrong so they can get better instead of blaming the performance on the test suddenly being different. We are talking about a standardized test.

AliceAgain
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby AliceAgain » Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:52 am

Jeffort,

I think this would be the pot calling the kettle black: "I don't understand your sudden focus on me in this thread or the motivation behind the negative presumptions you made . . . "

You made a negative - and incorrect, so far as I can tell - assumption that the OP was wholly blaming his lower performance on PT 70 on changes in the test, which is not what the OP said. The OP said,

Going through some of the previous topics, I've noticed people talking about how LR on the later tests is more subtle. I definitely got that feeling, like understanding it was a flaw question or a weakening question just wasn't good enough anymore. I also felt like there were more trap answers. My question now is, having exhausted all of my recent testing material, does anyone have any tips about how to study for this slightly new LR?


The OP said "slightly new LR" and asked for advice about how to improve. And, if you read some of the comments in the Dec. 2013 Retakers thread, other people have indeed made the observation that the LR sections of PT 70 were slightly different.

Your comments ("rubbish" "excuse") struck me as arrogant, offensive, unhelpful, and not based on what the OP actually said.

I do apologize for making it personal about you. That was not appropriate.

Sincerely,
Alice

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Jeffort » Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:11 am

If you want to argue with people about nonsense, criticize people and vent your feelings, you can do that elsewhere on the forum. This is the LSAT study forum for people trying to be productive and get ready for the test.

The 'new LR' idea already had already sprouted into people talking about the idea being real in the thread before I posted so I addressed the idea in general, not in line item directed responses to OPs individual statements to try to parse his statements and pick them apart one by one like trying to prove someone wrong in a deposition or something the way you are now nit picking and comparing wording between posts. I posted important information about the main ideas being discussed and you again are derailing the thread from the main topic by being nitpicky and expressing your irrelevant reactions to what you read. You are again being disruptive to discussion about the LSAT and arguing now by nitpicking statements piecemeal as if this is an adversarial argument focused on who said exactly what, what was implied, who is right/wrong/offensive/talking about personality stuff, etc. instead of focusing on the main important points regarding the LSAT under discussion. If you want a who said exactly what and what exactly was and wasn't established or claimed or implied or meant by the precise words used, who was right and who was wrong with each statement/interpretation, and whatnot of being critical of each others posts as some sort of game, you again are in the wrong part of the forum.

Has the LR changed recently from PT60s to PT70? No! I answered the question very clearly with plenty of detail. Go hit a retail mall to find things about people to get offended about. I don't care if you don't like that I don't state LSAT information I know to be true in statements like "I think this might be true" to show humility. Facts are facts, I present them as such and provide reasoning behind my conclusions, direct your emotional reactions to the substance, not the messenger. I might have been a little overly general and dramatic in my paraphrase of the gist of OPs point of view, but I'm not trying to have a word for word comparison he said she said argument, that is childish. My advice was about his thread title and thoughts he expressed behind what he thought was responsible for a lower than expected score, so what if I didn't restate his general perspective precisely, I was addressing the general idea since others ran with it in the thread. This part of the forum is for discussing things about the LSAT, not bickering your dissatisfaction with how other people phrase their posts. Again, if you are offended, sorry, try not to take LSAT information personally.
Last edited by Jeffort on Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: Huge drop from late 60s retests to fresh 70 PT

Postby Otunga » Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:35 am

I just wanted to clarify that while 70 LR was wordier, I attribute my lackluster performance in Oct to anxiety and as a result, my inconsistent approach (not bothering to eliminate answers, choosing answers on tough questions based on 'feel', proceeding to the answers without a firm enough grasp of things etc.). My actual score was at the lower end of the PT score band, so overall I didn't choke too bad. But if you isolate LR, then I choked significantly, as my mean there was around -4 in the 50s/60s.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: barkschool, cctv, cherrygalore, lland311, wildquest8200 and 3 guests