Scoring lower on more recent LSAT tests--why? Forum

[ExpectLess]

I've taken about a dozen LSAT tests (all strictly timed in proper testing conditions) starting from the mid 1990s and moving forward. Before even starting the tests, I read the powerscore bibles, so I wasn't starting blind. Initially, I was scoring anywhere between 171-176 (averaging 174) on the tests up until test #46, never scoring below a 171. On tests 46-49 I've been scoring 167-171 (averaging 168), and I'm wondering why I've had such a drop in my test scores? Did the tests get more difficult in the mid-2000s, did they perhaps change to attack one of my weaknesses, or is this just a fluke?

Logic games are never a problem--once every 3 or 4 tests, I'll miss a question or two, but that hasn't changed in the newer tests. My scores in reading comprehension have gone down slightly, whereas before I'd average 1-2 wrong on each section, now I average 2-4 wrong. The biggest change for me has been in LR, where I consistently get 2-5 wrong now on each section, whereas I'd average 1-3 wrong before.

I've noticed that in the newer tests they've almost all had 26 questions in LR, whereas the older ones usually were 25 and 25 questions or 24 and 26 questions, and time in the LR sections has, oddly, become more of a problem for me than it used to be. When there are 26 questions, I seem to always be pressed for time, unlike when there are 24 or 25. It seems like the questions themselves are longer than they used to be, too, and that the grading scale is less forgiving than it was earlier (on one of the tests I got 10 wrong but still ended up with a 168). Also, if it makes a difference, my weakest question type is assumption.

So, did the test just become longer/more difficult? And, more importantly, what can I do to remedy this problem? I've started cataloging the questions I get wrong so that I can look for patterns in these questions, but I'm looking for other suggestions on how to adapt and how to speed up in LR.

[Marionberry]

The general consensus as I understand it is that the more recent tests are more difficult on RC than the old ones, easier on games, and about the same on LR. My experience has reflected this. Additionally, I think the newer tests are scaled harder, which is to say that for the same amount of missed questions you receive a lower score than you would have on older tests.

I've not heard anyone suggest that the newer lr sections are more difficult, but they may just be written in a way that is less compatible with you for some reason. I imagine if you do more of the newer tests that you will adapt to the newer style and be just fine. Those are pretty gnarly scores for RC and games, so I think you're in good shape. Are you planning on taking the test in June?

[dynomite]

I've not heard anyone suggest that the newer lr sections are more difficult

I actually found the newer (PT 56+) LRs to be significantly harder.

I was getting -0 on the 40s and early 50s, and all of a sudden started getting -2/-3 on the LR sections from the last year.

The key for me was to realize that the newer LRs are offering the same wrong answers just disguised better and with more confusing prompts -- you don't need to memorize the stimulus, just answer the question asked.

[sangr]

what do u mean by this?

arent there many stimuli where you need to take in the whole thing?

could u elaborate? thatd be great!

[Mr. Smith]

I don't find the LR sections harder, but rather weirder. They have different styles of questions, trickier answer choices, just stuff that is outside the norm.

[Marionberry]

It seems like with the newer LR, along with newer reading comp, the questions are less formulaic. This hasn't been too much of a problem for me with the lr, but it does throw me off on the reading comp. At the same time, I think the games have become more formulaic and predictable, with the occasional oddball.