Is it useless to do earlier PTs? Forum

[Trequartista]

I will be retaking the LSAT in June and want to prepare myself as comprehensively as possible. I realize that the earlier PTs might not be that helpful for the actual test but I think they are useful to get a feel of the test and for timing and stamina purposes. Should I do as many PTs as possible or only focus on the latter ones?

My situation is complicated because I am an international LSAT taker. I went into the Oct 2010 LSAT thinking that it would be something along the lines of the late 50s tests but it turned out to be more similar to the late 30s early 40s tests. I think my score suffered dropped a couple of points because of this, when I first saw the set of two questions with one stimulus in the Logical reasoning section, I thought it was an experimental, but as it turned out all logical reasoning sections had those kinds of questions.

I really don't know what kind of a test to expect in June and feel that I should cover my bases and study comprehensively.

[rinkrat19]

The early PTs are far more similar to recent tests than they are different. The new comparative reading sample in RC is easy to get the hang of, so the lack of it on old tests is no big deal. LG changes a bit in feel over the years, but the old ones are still extremely useful, especially to learn/practice setting up and diagramming to build your speed. I'd start with the old tests and work your way through, so that the ones you practice with closest to the test are newer. (If you think you may need a retake, you might consider saving 5-10 assorted tests.)

[Kurst]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7#p3949816

[2011Law]

I did from "Next 10" on (30 PTs). I wish I had done from "10 More" on (40 PTs).