anyone else thought PT 27 was brutal? Forum
-
lsat_doobie
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 11:01 pm
anyone else thought PT 27 was brutal?
was this test harder than most? I've been doing the PTs in the 20s (because I've done all the newer ones) and they seem a lot harder than the newer PTs, especially the LRs which seem so much more straight forward in the newer tests.
-
LSAT Blog
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm
Re: anyone else thought PT 27 was brutal?
The LG in the 20s are harder than modern LG.
PT27 contains the lizards and snakes game (G2) and the film buffs game (G3), both of which are time-consuming.
PT27, G2 is easily one of the toughest games ever.
I wouldn't say LR in the 20s are harder than modern LR, though.
PT27 contains the lizards and snakes game (G2) and the film buffs game (G3), both of which are time-consuming.
PT27, G2 is easily one of the toughest games ever.
I wouldn't say LR in the 20s are harder than modern LR, though.
-
theZeigs
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm
Re: anyone else thought PT 27 was brutal?
TITCR +1 180LSAT Blog wrote:The LG in the 20s are harder than modern LG.
PT27 contains the lizards and snakes game (G2) and the film buffs game (G3), both of which are time-consuming.
PT27, G2 is easily one of the toughest games ever.
I wouldn't say LR in the 20s are harder than modern LR, though.
I can't imagine taking the test, getting the snakes lizards game, then hitting the film buffs game; esp. if I couldn't make the big deduction in the buffs game. I would fill in the two bubbles, sign the Johnnie Hancock, and roll out.
I don't remember the LR on 27 specifically, but I do agree about the LR with above poster. I think that RC were "easier" back in the day, this is so subjective that I'm not sure it's really the case, just my opinion maybe.
