Top Law Schools

So my goal is to do (roughly) 30 prep tests in the next two and a half months. I've used PT's 29-38 to learn the material, so I won't be taking them as prep tests. In what order do you guys think I should take them?

Should I take 19-28 first to identify my weaknesses and correct for them before moving on to the newer ones?
Should I take PT's in the 50's relatively early to get a general sense of what the most modern ones are like?
Should I go in order or mix them up?

I was kind of thinking something like this:
PT 19-28
Superprep A
PT 39-48
Super prep B and C
PT 49-57

Thanks for any help.

Knockglock wrote:So my goal is to do (roughly) 30 prep tests in the next two and a half months. I've used PT's 29-38 to learn the material, so I won't be taking them as prep tests. In what order do you guys think I should take them?

Should I take 19-28 first to identify my weaknesses and correct for them before moving on to the newer ones?
Should I take PT's in the 50's relatively early to get a general sense of what the most modern ones are like?
Should I go in order or mix them up?

I was kind of thinking something like this:
PT 19-28
Superprep A
PT 39-48
Super prep B and C
PT 49-57

Thanks for any help.

Sounds like a good plan. The newer PTs are more similar to the actual test, so it's probably a good idea to take those closer to the actual test.

Knockglock wrote:I was kind of thinking something like this:
PT 19-28
Superprep A
PT 39-48
Super prep B and C
PT 49-57

I approve.

One thing I'd add is that if you find you're running low on time (you ended up not taking all the tests that you intended) or you just are doing pretty well and ease up after a while, make sure you get 52 and up in the mix somewhere (and DEFINITELY at least one of 57-59 before test day). Comparative reading, recent game trends, the "swap a rule" question type, all these things are on recent tests and you won't find them as much or at all on older tests. Older stuff is good practice, but the most recent stuff is necessary.

tomwatts wrote:

Knockglock wrote:I was kind of thinking something like this:
PT 19-28
Superprep A
PT 39-48
Super prep B and C
PT 49-57

I approve.

One thing I'd add is that if you find you're running low on time (you ended up not taking all the tests that you intended) or you just are doing pretty well and ease up after a while, make sure you get 52 and up in the mix somewhere (and DEFINITELY at least one of 57-59 before test day). Comparative reading, recent game trends, the "swap a rule" question type, all these things are on recent tests and you won't find them as much or at all on older tests. Older stuff is good practice, but the most recent stuff is necessary.

Thank you so much Tom! You are one of the most helpful people on here

If you're running low on time, try to do as many recent logic games as possible to avoid any undesirable surprise on the test day.

Sorry to revive this thread, but I could not find any other thread regarding the order of preptest...I have 3-4 months of prep before June...

Q. Does anyone have a great strategy of the order of prep test?...

Q. Does starting with SuperPrep(Because of explanation) help me have a better mindset of LSAT?

Thank you for your great info in advance

30 is enough if you're shooting for the 160's. do all 64 (are there 64 now?) if you want a good shot at t14

Liquox wrote:30 is enough if you're shooting for the 160's. do all 64 (are there 64 now?) if you want a good shot at t14

okay, but what order?...

lovejopd wrote:

Liquox wrote:30 is enough if you're shooting for the 160's. do all 64 (are there 64 now?) if you want a good shot at t14

okay, but what order?...

Oldest to newest. Doing the newest closest to test day will better prepare you than the old ones because there have been changes in all three sections over the years.

I'm not sure if you intend to take them as (at least) 5 (multiple choice) section exams. This is highly recommended.

I would suggest that you take tests A, B, and C first, to become acquainted withe the proper methods of reasoning as LSAC details them. Also, I don't think it matters what order you take the tests in, as long as two conditions obtain:

1. You have not taken any older tests in the place of more recent ones; and
2. You take the newest ones closest to your test date to ascertain accurately your level of skill.

Thank you all!

So, the consensus is that have the SuperPrep ABC first to get familiar with/study the answers that LSAC provides. Then oldest(maybe Prep20) to the Newest(Prep64)!

But I heard that some LSAT Preps(40's?-People have a higher PT score) are a bit easier than other stuff. Do you think that studying these stuff FIRST to build any confidence level(even though it can backfire later-wrong idea of where I stand), then study a bit difficult Prep tests later? Any Idea PLEASE?~~~~

lovejopd wrote:Thank you all!

So, the consensus is that have the SuperPrep ABC first to get familiar with/study the answers that LSAC provides. Then oldest(maybe Prep20) to the Newest(Prep64)!

But I heard that some LSAT Preps(40's?-People have a higher PT score) are a bit easier than other stuff. Do you think that studying these stuff FIRST to build any confidence level(even though it can backfire later-wrong idea of where I stand), then study a bit difficult Prep tests later? Any Idea PLEASE?~~~~

Honestly, you're overthinking this. If you actually do that many practice tests, and also drill by question type on your weak spots, then you will be good to go come test day.

LexLeon wrote:I'm not sure if you intend to take them as (at least) 5 (multiple choice) section exams. This is highly recommended.

I would suggest that you take tests A, B, and C first, to become acquainted withe the proper methods of reasoning as LSAC details them. Also, I don't think it matters what order you take the tests in, as long as two conditions obtain:

1. You have not taken any older tests in the place of more recent ones; and
2. You take the newest ones closest to your test date to ascertain accurately your level of skill.

okay, I will use older tests as an experimental section even though I will definitely know it is an experimental section...

InGoodFaith wrote:

lovejopd wrote:Thank you all!

So, the consensus is that have the SuperPrep ABC first to get familiar with/study the answers that LSAC provides. Then oldest(maybe Prep20) to the Newest(Prep64)!

But I heard that some LSAT Preps(40's?-People have a higher PT score) are a bit easier than other stuff. Do you think that studying these stuff FIRST to build any confidence level(even though it can backfire later-wrong idea of where I stand), then study a bit difficult Prep tests later? Any Idea PLEASE?~~~~

Honestly, you're overthinking this. If you actually do that many practice tests, and also drill by question type on your weak spots, then you will be good to go come test day.

Thank you I am a little bit of nerve-wrecking right now as I am graduating this semester...Thank you!

lovejopd wrote:

LexLeon wrote:I'm not sure if you intend to take them as (at least) 5 (multiple choice) section exams. This is highly recommended.

I would suggest that you take tests A, B, and C first, to become acquainted withe the proper methods of reasoning as LSAC details them. Also, I don't think it matters what order you take the tests in, as long as two conditions obtain:

1. You have not taken any older tests in the place of more recent ones; and
2. You take the newest ones closest to your test date to ascertain accurately your level of skill.

okay, I will use older tests as an experimental section even though I will definitely know it is an experimental section...

yes, but keep track of your experiemental sections and you can combine them to see how you would have scored on that test. so after like 4 practice tests with one experimental section you can add all the experiementals together (assuming they're part of the same actual test) and it's like having taken 5 practice tests

gaud wrote:

lovejopd wrote:

LexLeon wrote:I'm not sure if you intend to take them as (at least) 5 (multiple choice) section exams. This is highly recommended.

I would suggest that you take tests A, B, and C first, to become acquainted withe the proper methods of reasoning as LSAC details them. Also, I don't think it matters what order you take the tests in, as long as two conditions obtain:

1. You have not taken any older tests in the place of more recent ones; and
2. You take the newest ones closest to your test date to ascertain accurately your level of skill.

okay, I will use older tests as an experimental section even though I will definitely know it is an experimental section...

yes, but keep track of your experiemental sections and you can combine them to see how you would have scored on that test. so after like 4 practice tests with one experimental section you can add all the experiementals together (assuming they're part of the same actual test) and it's like having taken 5 practice tests

Also, take the experimental as one of the first three sections of the test. This is almost always where it shows up on the test. I think it's been the fourth section once or twice, but never fifth.

gaud wrote:

lovejopd wrote:

LexLeon wrote:I'm not sure if you intend to take them as (at least) 5 (multiple choice) section exams. This is highly recommended.

I would suggest that you take tests A, B, and C first, to become acquainted withe the proper methods of reasoning as LSAC details them. Also, I don't think it matters what order you take the tests in, as long as two conditions obtain:

1. You have not taken any older tests in the place of more recent ones; and
2. You take the newest ones closest to your test date to ascertain accurately your level of skill.

okay, I will use older tests as an experimental section even though I will definitely know it is an experimental section...

yes, but keep track of your experiemental sections and you can combine them to see how you would have scored on that test. so after like 4 practice tests with one experimental section you can add all the experiementals together (assuming they're part of the same actual test) and it's like having taken 5 practice tests

Aha Good Point! 5 practice tests=4 full 5-section tests

InGoodFaith wrote:

gaud wrote:

lovejopd wrote:

LexLeon wrote:I'm not sure if you intend to take them as (at least) 5 (multiple choice) section exams. This is highly recommended.

I would suggest that you take tests A, B, and C first, to become acquainted withe the proper methods of reasoning as LSAC details them. Also, I don't think it matters what order you take the tests in, as long as two conditions obtain:

1. You have not taken any older tests in the place of more recent ones; and
2. You take the newest ones closest to your test date to ascertain accurately your level of skill.

okay, I will use older tests as an experimental section even though I will definitely know it is an experimental section...

yes, but keep track of your experiemental sections and you can combine them to see how you would have scored on that test. so after like 4 practice tests with one experimental section you can add all the experiementals together (assuming they're part of the same actual test) and it's like having taken 5 practice tests

Also, take the experimental as one of the first three sections of the test. This is almost always where it shows up on the test. I think it's been the fourth section once or twice, but never fifth.

I will! I am over-thinking again, But does what section(LR,AR,RC) you have as an experimental one affect your PT score? ex) 3 LR vs 2 Games vs. 2 RC? I guess it depends on my weakness on one of type? Is there any consensus on which extra section will suck up a test-taker's energy too much/the worst scenario Sorry for a series of questions...

I would assume that it depends on the test taker's strengths and weaknesses.

But don't worry about that stuff too much.. there is a possibility that your experimental section can be any one of those section types so practicing with them all over the place will be your best bet.