RC relevance question (old tests vs. newer tests) Forum

[justbubbles]

Ok, I think on TLS the (majority) consensus is:

LG - newer ones (PT 30 on) are more relevant; and
LR - older ones (PT 29 and below) are more verbose but it helps because LR hasn't changed much.

But what is the consensus on RC?

Are the RC's PT 40 and later more harder? Or is it just me? Prepping for Feb. 2011, should I focus more on the later RCs or is PTs 28-40 even worth doing?

Thanks,

[paulshortys10]

Consensus says the newer ones are much harder to make up for the easier LG...plus there's a new type of passage too.

I find with LR the stimulus was harder then and the choices are more confusing now...prob just me though

[justbubbles]

Thanks for the input, PaulShorty. I agree with you.

Maybe this is just me, but having done tests from all over the place (sporadically here and there), this is what I found:

PTs 1-20:

LR - Stimulus is wordy and verbose, some odd types not seen in the newer LRs (eg. 1 stimulus; 2 questions/stems, etc)
RC - Average
LG - Downright weird!

PTs 21-39:

LR - Same as above.
RC - Content wise, way too much history, literature, etc.
LG - Brutal! (advanced linear, circular, etc)

PTs 40-50:

LR - Condensed, but logic element is much harder (in terms of answer choices).
RC - Much more difficult. Content wise, more science, biology, economics, etc. types.
LG - Difficulty wise, moderate.

PTs 51-61:

LR - Somewhat hard and challenging (ie. answer choices are confusing with several attractive choices).
RC - New comparative reading format, but vastly different (question type wise) from the older ones.
LG - So-so, but mostly easy if you've have had the rhythm of practice with the older LG types.

[paulshortys10]

Yep u pretty much described it perfectly...I don't see many 2 questions per 1 stimulus in LR anymore