How far back should the preptests go? Forum

[nonpareilpearl]

Right now I am waiting on preptests 40-59 to arrive. Since 40 is around 2003, I was wondering if there was a benefit to going further back (e.g. into the 30s)? I also have the 10/Next 10/10 More Actual, Official LSAT books.

[quasi-stellar]

Yes, there is. No matter how old they are, they still test the same skills and have the same format. Personally, I am planning to complete every preptest, solve every game and do all rc passages. I don't really have much experience with standardized tests in general (never took SAT for example) and English is my second language. Completing every single question from older tests is the least I could do preparing for this exam.

[jayn3]

Yes, there is. No matter how old they are, they still test the same skills and have the same format. Personally, I am planning to complete every preptest, solve every game and do all rc passages. I don't really have much experience with standardized tests in general (never took SAT for example) and English is my second language. Completing every single question from older tests is the least I could do preparing for this exam.

not necessarily true. in RC, for instance, they added a type of question in the last few years. knowing this, i worked through my preptests older to newer, so that by test day, i was doing the most recent ones. if you have limited time to prep, i would definitely advise focusing on the more recent tests.

[TOMaHULK]

Yes, there is. No matter how old they are, they still test the same skills and have the same format. Personally, I am planning to complete every preptest, solve every game and do all rc passages. I don't really have much experience with standardized tests in general (never took SAT for example) and English is my second language. Completing every single question from older tests is the least I could do preparing for this exam.

not necessarily true. in RC, for instance, they added a type of question in the last few years. knowing this, i worked through my preptests older to newer, so that by test day, i was doing the most recent ones. if you have limited time to prep, i would definitely advise focusing on the more recent tests.

The argumentative section of the RC, that you're referring to is no different that the other RC questions. It merely takes 2 small texts and compares them. IMHO it's not a huge change. Yes I've taken the real LSAT before and yes After the change was made. It doesn't really do much as far as stumping you in the test. I actually welcome the "generally" smaller RC question.

[jayn3]

Yes, there is. No matter how old they are, they still test the same skills and have the same format. Personally, I am planning to complete every preptest, solve every game and do all rc passages. I don't really have much experience with standardized tests in general (never took SAT for example) and English is my second language. Completing every single question from older tests is the least I could do preparing for this exam.

not necessarily true. in RC, for instance, they added a type of question in the last few years. knowing this, i worked through my preptests older to newer, so that by test day, i was doing the most recent ones. if you have limited time to prep, i would definitely advise focusing on the more recent tests.

The argumentative section of the RC, that you're referring to is no different that the other RC questions. It merely takes 2 small texts and compares them. IMHO it's not a huge change. Yes I've taken the real LSAT before and yes After the change was made. It doesn't really do much as far as stumping you in the test. I actually welcome the "generally" smaller RC question.

i'm just saying, it was enough of a change that i was glad i knew it would be there on test day.

[TOMaHULK]

Yes, there is. No matter how old they are, they still test the same skills and have the same format. Personally, I am planning to complete every preptest, solve every game and do all rc passages. I don't really have much experience with standardized tests in general (never took SAT for example) and English is my second language. Completing every single question from older tests is the least I could do preparing for this exam.

not necessarily true. in RC, for instance, they added a type of question in the last few years. knowing this, i worked through my preptests older to newer, so that by test day, i was doing the most recent ones. if you have limited time to prep, i would definitely advise focusing on the more recent tests.

The argumentative section of the RC, that you're referring to is no different that the other RC questions. It merely takes 2 small texts and compares them. IMHO it's not a huge change. Yes I've taken the real LSAT before and yes After the change was made. It doesn't really do much as far as stumping you in the test. I actually welcome the "generally" smaller RC question.

i'm just saying, it was enough of a change that i was glad i knew it would be there on test day.

Oh yeah, certainly agree with that. But if you can get the older test and newer test, you wouldn't be missing much by doing the older ones. As long as you've done some practice on the newer form too. Jmo though.

[nonpareilpearl]

... knowing this, i worked through my preptests older to newer, so that by test day, i was doing the most recent ones. if you have limited time to prep, i would definitely advise focusing on the more recent tests.

I'm planning on taking the October test this year, so I have time to take a lot of tests. I was just feeling kind of spoiled by the Amazon 4-for-3 deal and I'm not having too much luck locating tests in the 30s on there (I'd have to look at individual sellers, Ebay, LSAC, etc.).

Thanks for the note about the changed RC question. The "pretest" I took was one of the 2004 tests and I didn't notice that question type on there.

I was thinking of doing the tests in order, but I wasn't sure if that was necessary/recommended. Based on that comment, it looks like there is a definite benefit to starting with the early tests and doing them in order.

I'm a first time test taker so any additional advice about the preptests is appreciated! Thanks for the advice/thoughts

[jayn3]

I'm planning on taking the October test this year, so I have time to take a lot of tests. I was just feeling kind of spoiled by the Amazon 4-for-3 deal and I'm not having too much luck locating tests in the 30s on there (I'd have to look at individual sellers, Ebay, LSAC, etc.).

Thanks for the note about the changed RC question. The "pretest" I took was one of the 2004 tests and I didn't notice that question type on there.

I was thinking of doing the tests in order, but I wasn't sure if that was necessary/recommended. Based on that comment, it looks like there is a definite benefit to starting with the early tests and doing them in order.

I'm a first time test taker so any additional advice about the preptests is appreciated! Thanks for the advice/thoughts

doing them in order makes sense as long as you can stick to your original study plan....i ended up buying more than i could get through since i took the october test and therefore also had to study for midterms.

beyond just the RC change, it's a good idea to bear in mind that they're constantly revising/updating the LSAT. not all the curves are the same, and sometimes the questions just suck. as i understand it, though, they're working on standardizing the curve, which means there is a gradual shift in the "feel" of the questions. i definitely noticed a difference between my Kaplan book, which included tests from 1995 i think, and the 2003 and later tests i bought individually. they still test the same things, but they do it slightly differently.

[nonpareilpearl]

So do you think it's beneficial to try and find tests not only from the 30s but also from the 20s as well?

[TOMaHULK]

So do you think it's beneficial to try and find tests not only from the 30s but also from the 20s as well?

20's and 30's are fine.

heck, just bought the "10 more actual test" and 20's and 30's are in that one.

[tomwatts]

OP: If you already got the 10 Actuals series, you already have the tests from the 20's and the 30's.

If you have the time and the need (some people get the score improvements that they need from 20-30 PTs — I did), then doing most/all of the tests is a good idea. PTs 1-20 or so are a little weird as compared to the present day (especially 1-5), but logic hasn't changed in thousands of years, and to some extent, practice is practice.

So it's a personal choice, but there can be some benefit, and usually no harm (unless you burn out), in doing older tests as well as newer.

[nonpareilpearl]

OP: If you already got the 10 Actuals series, you already have the tests from the 20's and the 30's.

I was wondering about that. I actually skipped buying three of the preptests in the 40s because they were in my PowerScore Deconstructed book (why buy them twice?). Two of the three "10 Actual" books I'll be using will arrive later this week, so I guess I'll just look through them and see what preptest numbers they correlate to

Thanks!

[snodell]

OP: If you already got the 10 Actuals series, you already have the tests from the 20's and the 30's.

I was wondering about that. I actually skipped buying three of the preptests in the 40s because they were in my PowerScore Deconstructed book (why buy them twice?). Two of the three "10 Actual" books I'll be using will arrive later this week, so I guess I'll just look through them and see what preptest numbers they correlate to

Thanks!

yes, the "next 10" book has PT 29-38, so you are covered for pt's in the 30s. you can actually go on amazon.com and zoom in on the front cover to see which pt's are in which book

[nonpareilpearl]

you can actually go on amazon.com and zoom in on the front cover to see which pt's are in which book

I didn't even notice that! Looks like in that case I have (or will soon have) preptests 7 - 38 (sans #8) in addition to 40 - 59. I guess I can stop worrying I'll run out of preptests now, LOL.

Thanks!

[Gnarmac]

Hey I'm new to all of this and I just wanted to clarify something.

Are tests with a lower number more recent? On the LSAC site the lowest number practice test being sold is the #7 (along with 9-16, 18). If I wanted the most recent one is that the one to get, or do I want a higher number (which I initially assumed meant more recent)?

[TOMaHULK]

Hey I'm new to all of this and I just wanted to clarify something.

Are tests with a lower number more recent? On the LSAC site the lowest number practice test being sold is the #7 (along with 9-16, 18). If I wanted the most recent one is that the one to get, or do I want a higher number (which I initially assumed meant more recent)?

The lower the test number is, the older it is.

The higher the test number is, the more recent it is.

So you'd want the high numbers for the recent test (i.e. test with the argumentative question in the RC section) and you'd want lower numbered test for the hard LG sections, as being discussed above.

[nonpareilpearl]

Hey I'm new to all of this and I just wanted to clarify something.

Are tests with a lower number more recent? On the LSAC site the lowest number practice test being sold is the #7 (along with 9-16, 18). If I wanted the most recent one is that the one to get, or do I want a higher number (which I initially assumed meant more recent)?

In general the earlier numbers correspond to earlier tests. For instance #7 corresponds to Feb 1993 and #59 corresponds to Dec 2009. The only except I've seen for this rule is #18, from Dec 1992, and I'm not really sure why that is.

LSAT Blog has a list available:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ls ... tered.html

[tomwatts]

They're numbered in the order that they were released (except A, B, and C, which were released so long after they were administered that numbering them would be likely to cause confusion). Also, huh. I never knew that some of those ancient PTs were February tests and not December tests; I figured that it was June, September/October, December since time immemorial.

According to that link, they're (maybe) going to release a 10 Actuals with PTs 52-61? That would be interesting (and welcome: the current 10 Actuals series is getting pretty old and musty at this point).