When do the Previously Administered Tests Become Realistic? Forum

[TokyoLove]

I've heard that some of the earliest ones (LSAT Tests administered in the early part of 1990s) do not reflect the substancial changes that LSAT has undergone over the years.
If that is the case, then beggining from which test (for example, LSAT Test 20) are PrepTests realistic, as in, it is most similar to the LSATs administered today?

[amputatedbrain]

I used the LSAC books full of prep tests . . . I had several of them, and I thought the most relevant was The Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests: PrepTests 29-38. The LC is pretty much the same, but the logic games have changed a bit over time, and 1-30 are a different style, although still good for practice. Of course now, the RC has changed, and I don't think that's reflected in this book (the two-passage comparison section), so you'd have to get even later practice tests for that.

[IAFG]

LR is always useful IMO.

[tomwatts]

As far as really big-picture things, anything past about PT5 is okay. I tend to think that 25 and on looks an awful lot like today, but some people will tell you that RC got harder around 46. Of course, comparative reading was introduced in June '07, so you need 52 and up for that.

[TokyoLove]

thanks for the valuable info tomwatts + others.

[kumba84]

As far as really big-picture things, anything past about PT5 is okay. I tend to think that 25 and on looks an awful lot like today, but some people will tell you that RC got harder around 46. Of course, comparative reading was introduced in June '07, so you need 52 and up for that.

I would agree with the part about RC. I didn't use many of the more recent PTs, and I think that really hurt my score since I wasn't used to the difficulty of the newer RCs. It wasn't just the comparative reading; it was the length and complexity of the regular passages, too.