Top Law Schools

Hi,

I have acquired practice tests 7,9 10-45...

I have been told that the test has changed over time...


I took my first diagnostic at 160 yesterday. I'm registered for PowerScore's full length class starting in two weeks. I want to take the October LSAT

Ideally, I'd cover all of the practice tests, but I don't think I'll get them all done. Which tests should I begin working through? Was there a certain time when the tests dramatically changed? What are the differences here?

*it was practice test 9 that I did my diagnostic with, the test was strictly timed.

The earlier tests are easier no matter how you look at it. This is because the earlier test takers had fewer examples (previous tests) to learn from. Start with the earlier tests and gradually move up, IMO.

How do you know which test is which number?

DorianGray89 wrote:How do you know which test is which number?

You can look it up.

I bookmarked this a while ago for ease:

http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/pub_ident.cfm

To OP: I think going through the early exams to get the format down and learning what the LSAT expects from is what you should do first. Then, when you are ready to start preparing for something you may see similarly on test day, the most recent PrepTests are what you should focus on.

The test has gotten more regular over time, among other things. Old tests have weird puzzle questions. Newer tests have consistent, LSAT-style questions. There was never a major shift.

As has been suggested already, practice on older tests at first to get some familiarity with the nature of the logic on the LSAT, and then turn to newer tests (you definitely want to do 50-60, and if you can get in 40-49, that's great) to see what the current state of the test is.

I'm kind of excited, because I just got my hands on PT 60, so I'm going to work through it in the near future. Maybe I'll post some idle musings about it as I go.

booboo wrote:

DorianGray89 wrote:How do you know which test is which number?

You can look it up.

I bookmarked this a while ago for ease:

http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/pub_ident.cfm

To OP: I think going through the early exams to get the format down and learning what the LSAT expects from is what you should do first. Then, when you are ready to start preparing for something you may see similarly on test day, the most recent PrepTests are what you should focus on.

QF booboo sighting.

The old tests had harder logic games IMO. Some people have suggested that the newer tests have started using more formal logic or "air tight" logic in the logical reasoning sections. The new reading comp sections have a comparative part where you have to read two short passages about the same subject and compare and contrast them.

As was already said, take the old tests first to get a handle on things. You can also cut them into pieces so you can add a 5th experimental section to the newer practice tests.

If you search the forums you'll be able to find discussions of how the curve has changed over time. The number of questions you can miss and still get a 170 has, generally, been smaller in recent years. This doesn't necessarily make the test harder but it is different.

Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close?

nickbentley wrote:Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close?

It would have been close to 160 no matter what test you took. But the name of the game is perfection so people are OCD about even very minor changes in the LSAT.

160 is a fine starting point. It's all about practice. Practice. Practice. Practice.

KibblesAndVick wrote:

nickbentley wrote:Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close?

It would have been close to 160 no matter what test you took. But the name of the game is perfection so people are OCD about even very minor changes in the LSAT.

160 is a fine starting point. It's all about practice. Practice. Practice. Practice.

I disagree. I think the later tests are definitely more tricky. The LSAC expects that later testers have an advantage over the earlier testers because they have more material to study.

Don't look for too much meaning in scores early on. The starting point is not as important as the rate/level of improvement. Take more tests and see if/how you progress.

3|ink wrote:

KibblesAndVick wrote:

nickbentley wrote:Ok.. so its safe to say that my 160 is not an actual 160?

is it close?

It would have been close to 160 no matter what test you took. But the name of the game is perfection so people are OCD about even very minor changes in the LSAT.

160 is a fine starting point. It's all about practice. Practice. Practice. Practice.

I disagree. I think the later tests are definitely more tricky. The LSAC expects that later testers have an advantage over the earlier testers because they have more material to study.

Don't look for too much meaning in scores early on. The starting point is not as important as the rate/level of improvement. Take more tests and see if/how you progress.

Cool. I'll take a recent test later today. then compare...

Thanks