. Forum

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[3|ink]

Did you originally post this under another name?

Anyway, yeah. That's why I only buy my LSAT stuff from Amazon.

[lparker]

Hm. Interesting. I was going to print 40-60 from Cambridge, but I will go with Amazon now.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[Cromartie]

Hm. Interesting. I was going to print 40-60 from Cambridge, but I will go with Amazon now.

i believe that some of their later PTs were purchased as PDF files directly from LSAC, so later ones are probably foul-proof.

My concern is with the earlier PTs. They may not reflect my true ability, as I could have missed a problem because of an omitted word or sentence.

I don't know which PTs were typed-up by one of Cambridge LSAT's employees, or purchased as PDF files.

I wouldn't be so anal about this if LSAT wasn't such a big deal in law school admissions.

Just ONE PROBLEM can distinguish a 169 from 170, Columbia from Harvard (ok may be two points), etc, which is why I'm very concerned about such defects.

Do you know when they started purchasing directly from LSAC? I bought 55-60 from Cambridge.

[LSAT Blog]

I believe many of the older tests were scanned in with OCR (optical character recognition), which is good, but not perfect. This is likely the source of some problems. Don't know of the exact date when the change happened, though.

Here's a big list of PrepTests if you want to get them elsewhere, but I'm sure the errors in the Cambridge exams will decrease over time as people report them and they are subsequently corrected.