Recent LSAT trends Forum
- Mrs Featherbottom
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:08 pm
Recent LSAT trends
Hey everyone, doing some last minute drilling to address recent LSAT trends I can expect to see on Saturday.
In discussing recent PTs, I've seen several posters say that the LSAT changed noticeably after PT50. Others said they see a marked difference after PT69, while others see a big change after 72.
I'm not sure how much analysis here will help on test day, but what are these trends that everyone's seeing? Any particular questions/sections/PTs that are particularly indicative of these trends? I've noticed that LG has gotten much more straightforward and more predictable, but trends in other sections seem negligible to me.
Please don't just say "RC harder, LG easier." Looking for a little nuance here. Apologies if this topic has already been beaten to death.
In discussing recent PTs, I've seen several posters say that the LSAT changed noticeably after PT50. Others said they see a marked difference after PT69, while others see a big change after 72.
I'm not sure how much analysis here will help on test day, but what are these trends that everyone's seeing? Any particular questions/sections/PTs that are particularly indicative of these trends? I've noticed that LG has gotten much more straightforward and more predictable, but trends in other sections seem negligible to me.
Please don't just say "RC harder, LG easier." Looking for a little nuance here. Apologies if this topic has already been beaten to death.
- nlee10
- Posts: 3015
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:00 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
have you done the recent LG?Mrs Featherbottom wrote:Hey everyone, doing some last minute drilling to address recent LSAT trends I can expect to see on Saturday.
In discussing recent PTs, I've seen several posters say that the LSAT changed noticeably after PT50. Others said they see a marked difference after PT69, while others see a big change after 72.
I'm not sure how much analysis here will help on test day, but what are these trends that everyone's seeing? Any particular questions/sections/PTs that are particularly indicative of these trends? I've noticed that LG has gotten much more straightforward and more predictable, but trends in other sections seem negligible to me.
Please don't just say "RC harder, LG easier." Looking for a little nuance here. Apologies if this topic has already been beaten to death.
- Mrs Featherbottom
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:08 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
75? Yeah, I took the June 2015 test. That had some pretty strange setups. I've been drilling the LGs from the 90s in case the October test is similar.nlee10 wrote:have you done the recent LG?Mrs Featherbottom wrote:Hey everyone, doing some last minute drilling to address recent LSAT trends I can expect to see on Saturday.
In discussing recent PTs, I've seen several posters say that the LSAT changed noticeably after PT50. Others said they see a marked difference after PT69, while others see a big change after 72.
I'm not sure how much analysis here will help on test day, but what are these trends that everyone's seeing? Any particular questions/sections/PTs that are particularly indicative of these trends? I've noticed that LG has gotten much more straightforward and more predictable, but trends in other sections seem negligible to me.
Please don't just say "RC harder, LG easier." Looking for a little nuance here. Apologies if this topic has already been beaten to death.
- nlee10
- Posts: 3015
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:00 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
Spoiler alert:Mrs Featherbottom wrote: 75? Yeah, I took the June 2015 test. That had some pretty strange setups. I've been drilling the LGs from the 90s in case the October test is similar.
PT 72 has another unusual LG. PT 73/74 have very time-consuming LG's. PT 68 has a super time-consuming game. I think there's a shift towards rule-driven brute forcing your way games.
- mist4bison
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:17 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
I agree with this. Less inferences to make and more plugging and chugging.nlee10 wrote:Spoiler alert:Mrs Featherbottom wrote: 75? Yeah, I took the June 2015 test. That had some pretty strange setups. I've been drilling the LGs from the 90s in case the October test is similar.
PT 72 has another unusual LG. PT 73/74 have very time-consuming LG's. PT 68 has a super time-consuming game. I think there's a shift towards rule-driven brute forcing your way games.
I also think NA questions are changing. Ive seen two now with answers that are really SAs. (I forget the PTs, but one in RC and one in LR).
I personally think that RC questions are less strict with wording, too, but that may just be me. What I mean by that is that the best answers now on some RC are kind of shitty answers. Again, might just be me.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- nlee10
- Posts: 3015
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:00 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
So much this. I learned through my prep class last year that NA's used to have relatively "weak" answers but not anymore.mist4bison wrote:I agree with this. Less inferences to make and more plugging and chugging.nlee10 wrote:Spoiler alert:Mrs Featherbottom wrote: 75? Yeah, I took the June 2015 test. That had some pretty strange setups. I've been drilling the LGs from the 90s in case the October test is similar.
PT 72 has another unusual LG. PT 73/74 have very time-consuming LG's. PT 68 has a super time-consuming game. I think there's a shift towards rule-driven brute forcing your way games.
I also think NA questions are changing. Ive seen two now with answers that are really SAs. (I forget the PTs, but one in RC and one in LR).
I personally think that RC questions are less strict with wording, too, but that may just be me. What I mean by that is that the best answers now on some RC are kind of shitty answers. Again, might just be me.
- McJimJam
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:27 pm
Post removed.
Post removed.
Last edited by McJimJam on Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mrs Featherbottom
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:08 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
Definitely agree on the NA questions. I think the trick of negating the answer to confirm it still seems to work at least. Took 69 and 70 over the weekend and hardly saw any SA questions (from what I remember), so maybe those are becoming less common in lieu of broader NAs.nlee10 wrote:So much this. I learned through my prep class last year that NA's used to have relatively "weak" answers but not anymore.mist4bison wrote:I agree with this. Less inferences to make and more plugging and chugging.nlee10 wrote:Spoiler alert:Mrs Featherbottom wrote: 75? Yeah, I took the June 2015 test. That had some pretty strange setups. I've been drilling the LGs from the 90s in case the October test is similar.
PT 72 has another unusual LG. PT 73/74 have very time-consuming LG's. PT 68 has a super time-consuming game. I think there's a shift towards rule-driven brute forcing your way games.
I also think NA questions are changing. Ive seen two now with answers that are really SAs. (I forget the PTs, but one in RC and one in LR).
I personally think that RC questions are less strict with wording, too, but that may just be me. What I mean by that is that the best answers now on some RC are kind of shitty answers. Again, might just be me.
- ugg
- Posts: 11771
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:30 pm
- ugg
- Posts: 11771
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:30 pm
- mist4bison
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:17 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
Necessary assumption and sufficient assumption. It used to be that on an NA question if an SA answer popped up, it wasn't right, but now I'm seeing questions where an SA answer is the right AC for an NA question.theugg wrote:What are NA and SA questions?
Trying to figure out an RC strategy too. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks RC is weirder now.
- ugg
- Posts: 11771
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:30 pm
- nlee10
- Posts: 3015
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:00 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
LSAC caught on with these prep companies. If only I took the LSAT like 5 years ago when it was a bit more normal.mist4bison wrote:Necessary assumption and sufficient assumption. It used to be that on an NA question if an SA answer popped up, it wasn't right, but now I'm seeing questions where an SA answer is the right AC for an NA question.theugg wrote:What are NA and SA questions?
Trying to figure out an RC strategy too. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks RC is weirder now.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- mist4bison
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:17 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
I think that 72-2-12 is a decent example. I feel like E could be the answer to an SA question. I mean, it very sufficiently fills the gap. I mean I guess it's required too, but I would expect it on an SAquestion. There are better examples, though. I know that there was a recent RC that really did this. I can't think of which one though.theugg wrote:Do you have any examples of this reversal? I haven't noticed anything odd.mist4bison wrote:Necessary assumption and sufficient assumption. It used to be that on an NA question if an SA answer popped up, it wasn't right, but now I'm seeing questions where an SA answer is the right AC for an NA question.theugg wrote:What are NA and SA questions?
Trying to figure out an RC strategy too. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks RC is weirder now.
- Op_Diom
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:27 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
Yeah well just for logical clarification, technically a necessary assumption can also be sufficient and vice versa. However, it takes a special type of relation within the argument. It would be the equivalent to 'if and only if' instead of just 'if'. But yeah I have noticed that curveball also and its definitely a ploy to trip up those who automatically strike through SA answers on NA questions.mist4bison wrote:I think that 72-2-12 is a decent example. I feel like E could be the answer to an SA question. I mean, it very sufficiently fills the gap. I mean I guess it's required too, but I would expect it on an SAquestion. There are better examples, though. I know that there was a recent RC that really did this. I can't think of which one though.theugg wrote:Do you have any examples of this reversal? I haven't noticed anything odd.mist4bison wrote:Necessary assumption and sufficient assumption. It used to be that on an NA question if an SA answer popped up, it wasn't right, but now I'm seeing questions where an SA answer is the right AC for an NA question.theugg wrote:What are NA and SA questions?
Trying to figure out an RC strategy too. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks RC is weirder now.
- chalky
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:20 am
Post removed...
Post removed...
Last edited by chalky on Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Monkey D Luffy
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:29 pm
Re: Recent LSAT trends
PT 72 LG 4 was definitely a WTF game for me.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login