Is it just me or are post PT56s actually harder? Forum

[Prime12]

Ok, as far as post-PT56 tests are concerned, I've only taken PT57 and 58. But I felt both the argument and games sections on those two were harder than those of PT40~56. Arguments, IMHO some of the stimuli and answers on 57-58 were not as 'clear cut' as opposed to the older tests, prompting me to re-read or decide between two similar answer choices. Games, while not fundamentally different, the later tests had enough 'twists' to them to throw me off balance. Dinosaur games anyone? grrrrr....

I averaged around 172 on PT40-56. I got a fucking 161 in PT57 yesterday and 168 on PT58 today. Considering that the only reason I'm retaking the exam is to beat my current score of 169, this is very disheartening.

Does anyone else find this to be case?

[minuit]

it's, unfortunately, not just you. the tests have gotten harder.

[Prime12]

Well that... sucks.

I just read the 'I scored below 10 pts my average on the Oct 2010 test.' thread too. What gives?

[Adjudicator]

Not just you at all. When I did PTs 50-60, I absolutely thought that 57-60 were on a different level of craftiness. 57 was actually the worst of all, for me.

[incompetentia]

55-60 were all ridiculous for me. Tests have gotten somewhat more difficult (especially RC, it seems). Based on my average on older tests, I went -5 on 55, -8 on 57, and -16 on 60.

I think in general, if you know what's coming and you've experienced and comprehended it already, it's not as horrible as people say it is.

[gdane]

They arent necessarily harder, just different. LSAC starts asking differnt question types. In past tests you would see more weaken and assumption questions, whereas you now see more flaw in reasoning, role and inference questions.

Also, RC has gotten more dense and the questions are slightly more difficult.

Just practice them. Its not that bad.

Good luck!

[mr_toad]

Between PT 45-55 (avg 176 on full-time 5 section tests), I was convinced I'd score 174/5+ in October. AFter 56-60 (avg. 171 or so), I was just hoping to beat my previous of 169. I did. By one. Luckily, I consider the jump from 169 to 170 to be one of the most important single points, but what it comes down to is yes, the new tests suck. Even if you are well prepared, they can bite you where you least expect it.

Edit: Yes, I kind of believe that (due to breaking 170), but also it's just to console myself for having spent two months and hundreds of dollars on materials studying to go up one point... I have to think it was worth it.

[doing_it_in_a_car]

I think LG has seen the most change over the years as far as increasing in difficulty. The 90s had simple linear sequencing etc.

I really hate that new question type - something like "If X condition was eliminated, which condition of the following would keep the game the same"

Just keep practicing and you'll get it eventually!

[Prime12]

Between PT 45-55 (avg 176 on full-time 5 section tests), I was convinced I'd score 174/5+ in October. AFter 56-60 (avg. 171 or so), I was just hoping to beat my previous of 169. I did. By one. Luckily, I consider the jump from 169 to 170 to be one of the most important single points, but what it comes down to is yes, the new tests suck. Even if you are well prepared, they can bite you where you least expect it.

Edit: Yes, I kind of believe that (due to breaking 170), but also it's just to console myself for having spent two months and hundreds of dollars on materials studying to go up one point... I have to think it was worth it.

Congrats on the jump. I have been feeling the exact same way. Only that I am actually averaging lower than my current score and if the trend continues that is probably how I will actually perform.

My GPA is a 3.15 so I pretty much NEED to score above median(which is a 170) at schools I want to attend. My current 169 could have been a 149 for all they care. I was shooting for a 172 and was pretty confident at my progress but at this point I'd die for a 170.

[TommyK]

the dinosaur game was ridiculous. I looked at it, laughed, and came back to it. I'm pretty sure I guessed on every one except one for that game.

Also, only tangentially related - dinosaurs are awesome.

[cubswin]

the dinosaur game was ridiculous. I looked at it, laughed, and came back to it. I'm pretty sure I guessed on every one except one for that game.

Also, only tangentially related - dinosaurs are awesome.

Maybe it has just been a while since I used PowerScore methods, but I think that the way they handle grouping games makes that one seem difficult. Does anyone agree with me? I realize that this might just be a matter of personal preference.

[gdane]

the dinosaur game was ridiculous. I looked at it, laughed, and came back to it. I'm pretty sure I guessed on every one except one for that game.

Also, only tangentially related - dinosaurs are awesome.

It really wasnt that difficult. You just have to keep a very close eye on the details and keep your diagrams very neat.

There were only like 7 possibilies I think. Plot those out and you can find out every correct answer.

[Prime12]

the dinosaur game was ridiculous. I looked at it, laughed, and came back to it. I'm pretty sure I guessed on every one except one for that game.

Also, only tangentially related - dinosaurs are awesome.

It really wasnt that difficult. You just have to keep a very close eye on the details and keep your diagrams very neat.

There were only like 7 possibilies I think. Plot those out and you can find out every correct answer.

The problem I had was that by the time I figured out how important the 'mauve deduction' was, I was well past 6 minutes on the game with no progress.

While I agree that the game wouldn't have been hard if I had figured out the possible mauve placements in the beginning, at least for me that very deduction was not very straightforward to arrive at. Thats why i thought it was difficult. That deduction was crucial enough so that without it you could only do so much in the limited time.

[KevinP]

PTs past and including 56 are definitely harder. However, their curves make up for it. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 had curves of -11, -11, -11, -14, -12, -12 respectively.

[Unshake]

I noticed that I dropped on RC once I hit PT 50 and stayed the same on LR. Logic games has been all over the place for me. I usually score -2-3 on LR, and -2-4 on RC. However, on LG I have scored from -0 to most recent on the October test -10. Not really sure why, the games are just different, not harder. My biggest mistake was becoming too much of a machine on the past practice exams and messing up when a curveball is thrown (which seems more common on recent LGs).

I'd say RC there isn't much you can do to improve besides pacing (leave yourself extra time for the last 2 passages). For LG I seem to improve if I take a step back and make more inferences. I averaged 171-172 over all of the practice tests from 30ish-58 and scored a 161 on the real thing. Needless to say I'm retaking in December and hope to score a 170 but would be happy with a 168+.

[rinkrat19]

I thought they were a little bit harder AND a little bit different in style, which combined to drop my PT scores a bit. It was disconcerting.

FWIW, I thought test 61 did perhaps have the same slightly different style as the late PTs, but wasn't as difficult (especially LG), and I scored above my PT average.

I think people who score well below their PT average have nerves more to blame than the test itself.

[Sandro]

I would rather have a -9 test than -12/-14. Hard ass LG = disproportionately more wrong than harder LR/RC for me. For example on the low 50s which had easier LG i was scoring high 160's 168/169ish. Later 50's, and sadly 61, mid/lower with more wrong on games....

[northwood]

I think the lsat has changed. There are different wording and question types, especially on LG- where you have if element x or rule x is removed which answer would do the same ( the actual wording is similar to this). I saw this on october and just guessed. LR has a shift in question types to the more abstract ones ( toward the end of the LRB) I think. Also, RC has gotten a bit more dense- no more just skim and reflect or figure out which word is in both passages of the comparative reading ).

This could be the lsac's response to all of the prep companies, as well as the influx of people taking the test. If you are going to take the test in december, it is imperitive that you do as many tests from 50-61 as possible. It takes some tests to get a hold of these changes. This could help explain the lenient curves, but I have a feeling that in a few years, the curves will be around -10 or so ( they have to wait 3 years due to their belief that the lsat score reflects test takers over a 2 or 3 year span).

best of luck to all taking in december!

[2Serious4Numbers]

for some strange reason PT 58 dominated me.. never could figure out why. but overall they are "normal"

[KevinP]

I would rather have a -9 test than -12/-14. Hard ass LG = disproportionately more wrong than harder LR/RC for me. For example on the low 50s which had easier LG i was scoring high 160's 168/169ish. Later 50's, and sadly 61, mid/lower with more wrong on games....

I'm the complete opposite. I'm really hoping for a really hard LG section as that is easily my best section and that will offset any stupid mistakes I make in the other sections.

[cubswin]

for some strange reason PT 58 dominated me.. never could figure out why. but overall they are "normal"

Maybe you are bad with "selection" games. There are two of them on that test.