Top Law Schools

I just got pt 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7 from Amazon. I don't have very much material that I haven't already seen. Would you think its more valuable taking these old old lsats or taking some of the newer ones that I may recall a question or two from? Theres only 24 days until the LSAT so I am trying to manage my time best which means I probably shouldn't make this post to long. Anyways, any thoughts?

I'd say do a little of both. You'll notice that the really old LSATs look pretty weird, but fundamentally, logic hasn't changed since the ancient Greeks codified it more than two thousand years ago, so it's still okay practice. On the other hand, you do want to review current patterns. So repeat some recent stuff and also do some fresh old stuff.

I would say someone who has been studying PTS 1-20 and picks up a PT in the late 50s will struggle some. The question types/wording/tricks/what they want you to pick up on are slightly different.

I noticed that they don't do the 2 for 1 for questions in LR like they used to.

Also, some of these LR questions are REALLY REALLY tough lol. I got through 1-19 absolutely no problem whatsoever. Then 20, 21, AND 22 were friggen hard!

I'm going to do what you guys suggest though and break it up 50/50.

Thanks for your replies

lakers3peat wrote:I noticed that they don't do the 2 for 1 for questions in LR like they used to.

Also, some of these LR questions are REALLY REALLY tough lol. I got through 1-19 absolutely no problem whatsoever. Then 20, 21, AND 22 were friggen hard!

I'm going to do what you guys suggest though and break it up 50/50.

Thanks for your replies

I've been working on some of the old tests and every once in awhile I get a LR that makes me write WTF? next to it. Some are just weird!

lakers3peat wrote:I noticed that they don't do the 2 for 1 for questions in LR like they used to.

Also, some of these LR questions are REALLY REALLY tough lol. I got through 1-19 absolutely no problem whatsoever. Then 20, 21, AND 22 were friggen hard!

I'm going to do what you guys suggest though and break it up 50/50.

Thanks for your replies

I've recently been doing the LRs from PTs 19-28. I didn't have too much trouble with PTs 20-22, but I felt like PT 23 had the hardest LR sections I've ever done. I was not surprised to later discover that the test had a -16 curve.

Sandro777 wrote:I would say someone who has been studying PTS 1-20 and picks up a PT in the late 50s will struggle some. The question types/wording/tricks/what they want you to pick up on are slightly different.

Am I the only one who considers the older PTs to be noticeably harder than the recent PTs in the 50s? This is definitely not the case for RC, but I believe it is for LR. Many of the older LR questions are just weird and difficult, while the newer LR seems to be phrased a lot more clearly and concisely. I think the newer LR sections are designed to be more time consuming but not necessarily harder. There are a lot of instances in the older LR where I just completely missed the correct answer choices or wouldn't get it correct no matter what my state of mind was while taking the test. This rarely happens in the newer LR. If I look at an answer long enough it makes perfect sense, and I'm usually just really confident steam rolling through the correct answers. LG definitely seems to be getting harder though. Not so much in game difficulty, but more so in terms of them being more abstract and containing more time consuming answer choices.

Well, i mean, if your idea is to take them all then taking 1-20 is fine.

If you plan on taking less than 60, then that number should continue to narrow the tests you take towards the most recent tests- i.e. if you want to take 40 then start at 20

There's no other reason to take tests that early

I think the earliest test I took was 19. I took about 35 tests though.

lsat_doobie wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:I would say someone who has been studying PTS 1-20 and picks up a PT in the late 50s will struggle some. The question types/wording/tricks/what they want you to pick up on are slightly different.

Am I the only one who considers the older PTs to be noticeably harder than the recent PTs in the 50s? This is definitely not the case for RC, but I believe it is for LR. Many of the older LR questions are just weird and difficult, while the newer LR seems to be phrased a lot more clearly and concisely. I think the newer LR sections are designed to be more time consuming but not necessarily harder. There are a lot of instances in the older LR where I just completely missed the correct answer choices or wouldn't get it correct no matter what my state of mind was while taking the test. This rarely happens in the newer LR. If I look at an answer long enough it makes perfect sense, and I'm usually just really confident steam rolling through the correct answers. LG definitely seems to be getting harder though. Not so much in game difficulty, but more so in terms of them being more abstract and containing more time consuming answer choices.

No. Older LR's are definitely more wordy, lengthier, and sometimes what they are asking you to do is just weird. If you aren't in the right mindset they can kill you. Good for practice but you need to do recent LR to have a good grasp of test day.