Usefulness of "10 Actual" books Forum

[mac35352]

Any thoughts about this statement?
The LR from the "10 actual" book should not be used if you are shooting for a 170. They are looser than newer problems are. Using old LG's are fine.
I should add: For drilling specific question types and not for an accurate diagnostic. Also, not as a replacement for the more recent preptest.

[bhan87]

You should do all the tests included, but just don't use it as a gauge for how you'd do on a recent LSAT. Many of the common question types have remained consistent for all 3 sections but there have been variations on difficulty amongst sections and emphasis on types that appear. For instance, RC has gotten harder and certain types of LR questions just don't appear very often anymore (the more recent you get the more streamlined the questions feel)

[rinkrat19]

Anecdotally: I used them. I got a 171. I noticed very little difference.

[NYCLSATTutor]

I will tell you right now that most people will disagree with my statement. I have some work to do tonight so I don't want to spend ages explaining it, but here is the gist of it.

The newer questions are well written. Extremely well written. If you can think of a "whoah what about X" for the new questions, whatever X is may well be important. X is a feature, not a bug, because the newer questions rarely, rarely have bugs.

This is not true of the old questions. Sometimes they want you to take as true things that seem a bit dubious. Sometimes you might think "hey what about X" and X isn't a feature, it is a bug. Its something that, because they aren't as well written, was just missed when the question was being written.

Furthermore, the testmakers have a certain style to the way they ask questions. The style has changed over time. There are certain assumptions about life (general knowledge) that you are allowed to bring in. This has also changed over time.

By the way, all of this ONLY applies to the logical reasoning.

[dextermorgan]

Any thoughts about this statement?
The LR from the "10 actual" book should not be used if you are shooting for a 170. They are looser than newer problems are. Using old LG's are fine.
I should add: For drilling specific question types and not for an accurate diagnostic. Also, not as a replacement for the more recent preptest.

That statement is stupid.

[suspicious android]

Its something that, because they aren't as well written, was just missed when the question was being written.

Care to offer a specific example?

[mac35352]

Its something that, because they aren't as well written, was just missed when the question was being written.

Care to offer a specific example?

I'm waiting on this!
I want to know how the earlier LR questions are not as well written as the newer ones.

[HBK]

I used the first set of 10 as filler for my 5th section on practice exams. If I missed more in the 5th section than I did in any of my 4 graded sections, I would use that negative number in calculating my score (made me not slack off on the section I knew wouldn't be graded).

The other two books were fine to prep with, the first set of ten was a little different than what you see now.

Also, if I just wanted to do a quick 25 or 30 minute timed section to work on pacing, I would use a throwaway section from the first set of ten.