Top Law Schools

So I understand the usefulness and importance of using legitimate LSAC questions, but I've sat for the LSAT twice already. Both times I scored under my average, 164 on both sittings. I feel like it might be a nerves issue or something? I don't know. But at this point, I've done pretty much all of the recent PTs, some of them twice, and I'd like fresh questions for my 3rd sitting. I haven't done all the super early PTs yet, but I've done some and I find the LR and CR much easier than they have been in recent years.

Ideally, I'd like questions the questions to be harder. I feel like one of the main reasons you should use LSAC questions is to get used to LSAC's styling, wording etc. But having seen so many LSAC questions, I don't think that it can provide me much more benefits.

Also, I have this friend who got a 2380 on his SATs and he told me that when he prepped for that, he exclusively used SAT prepbooks that wrote more difficult questions. I know that SATs and LSAT are different but I don't think it hurt it.

tl;dr

Anyways, I know that PR's SAT books have harder questions. What would be the LSAT equivalent? I know that cambridge has a thing where they compile all the more difficult questions but that isn't quite what I'm looking for.

Thanks.

I've been using getprepped's Ace the LSAT Logic Games and have found their games to be much more difficult than actual LSAT games. If you can nail those, that section should be no problem on the real deal.

We (Princeton Review) do the same thing in our LSAT books.

Buy the Powerscore books and buy all the Real LSAC questions. I've seen some of the company-created lsats, and some of the stuff they write is just ridiculous.

For the most part, companies write their own LSAT questions because they don't want to pay LSAC licensing fees - and there are a bunch of good reasons (which outweigh Any opposing arguments) for getting the real LSAC questions.


General consensus is to buy the Powerscore books or take the Testmasters class. Other than that, I've heard that blueprint or manhattan lsat are good options, though probably with less solid track records.

jeremysen wrote:I've seen some of the company-created lsats, and some of the stuff they write is just ridiculous.

For the most part, companies write their own LSAT questions because they don't want to pay LSAC licensing fees - and there are a bunch of good reasons (which outweigh Any opposing arguments) for getting the real LSAC questions.

This. You don't remember every question from every PT, even if you think you do. Do the PTs one at a time, and don't do another until you absolutely understand why each correct answer is correct and why every wrong answer you chose is incorrect. Quantity is not the key to improvement.

sundance95 wrote:

jeremysen wrote:I've seen some of the company-created lsats, and some of the stuff they write is just ridiculous.

For the most part, companies write their own LSAT questions because they don't want to pay LSAC licensing fees - and there are a bunch of good reasons (which outweigh Any opposing arguments) for getting the real LSAC questions.

This. You don't remember every question from every PT, even if you think you do. Do the PTs one at a time, and don't do another until you absolutely understand why each correct answer is correct and why every wrong answer you chose is incorrect. Quantity is not the key to improvement.

Thoughts on the Logic Games posted over on the Manhattan LSAT page? They are free so I guess its a different case, but are they generally pretty reflective of the actual questions and their structures?

I'm not sure using fake questions is the answer here. Have you really taken every PT in the 40s, 50s, and 60s twice? There are other ways to make the test "harder" when you're practicing. You could try practicing with 5 or 6 section PTs and/or 30 minute sections.

emarxnj wrote:Thoughts on the Logic Games posted over on the Manhattan LSAT page? They are free so I guess its a different case, but are they generally pretty reflective of the actual questions and their structures?

Manhattan LSAT's unofficial logic games are useful for supplemental LG practice -- they are not a substitute for logic games from actual LSATs. Manhattan does a pretty good job of replicating actual logic games, but since they have not been subjected to rigorous examination by LSAC psychometricians, or pretested in experimental sections, they ought to be approached with caution.

Kurst wrote:

emarxnj wrote:Thoughts on the Logic Games posted over on the Manhattan LSAT page? They are free so I guess its a different case, but are they generally pretty reflective of the actual questions and their structures?

Manhattan LSAT's unofficial logic games are useful for supplemental LG practice -- they are not a substitute for logic games from actual LSATs. Manhattan does a pretty good job of replicating actual logic games, but since they have not been subjected to rigorous examination by LSAC psychometricians, or pretested in experimental sections, they ought to be approached with caution.

Oh I have all the actual tests ("Official" books and newer ones), I've just been doing the Manhattan ones for fun. I haven't really started my full blown prep, just getting my feet wet. The "LSAT Arcade" is interesting as well.

emarxnj wrote:

sundance95 wrote:

jeremysen wrote:I've seen some of the company-created lsats, and some of the stuff they write is just ridiculous.

For the most part, companies write their own LSAT questions because they don't want to pay LSAC licensing fees - and there are a bunch of good reasons (which outweigh Any opposing arguments) for getting the real LSAC questions.

This. You don't remember every question from every PT, even if you think you do. Do the PTs one at a time, and don't do another until you absolutely understand why each correct answer is correct and why every wrong answer you chose is incorrect. Quantity is not the key to improvement.

Thoughts on the Logic Games posted over on the Manhattan LSAT page? They are free so I guess its a different case, but are they generally pretty reflective of the actual questions and their structures?

I looked at the current LG posted on their website, and it really does not sound like what would appear on the actual LSAT - I've taken all the published LSAC tests during my time prepping, and just looking at the subject alone, the current question is off mark.

Btw, I bought their Manhattan GMAT books, and while their strategy guides were solid, their practice tests were Really Really unreflective of the actual test. (significant differences in feel and score for myself and 3 other friends)

jeremysen wrote:I looked at the current LG posted on their website, and it really does not sound like what would appear on the actual LSAT - I've taken all the published LSAC tests during my time prepping, and just looking at the subject alone, the current question is off mark.

Have you checked these (LinkRemoved) out? Interested to hear your thoughts.

Sometimes-goofy subjects aside, they're meant to be extremely similar, yet on average, more difficult, than typical LSAT Logic Games.

jeremysen wrote:

emarxnj wrote:

sundance95 wrote:

jeremysen wrote:I've seen some of the company-created lsats, and some of the stuff they write is just ridiculous.

For the most part, companies write their own LSAT questions because they don't want to pay LSAC licensing fees - and there are a bunch of good reasons (which outweigh Any opposing arguments) for getting the real LSAC questions.

This. You don't remember every question from every PT, even if you think you do. Do the PTs one at a time, and don't do another until you absolutely understand why each correct answer is correct and why every wrong answer you chose is incorrect. Quantity is not the key to improvement.

Thoughts on the Logic Games posted over on the Manhattan LSAT page? They are free so I guess its a different case, but are they generally pretty reflective of the actual questions and their structures?

I looked at the current LG posted on their website, and it really does not sound like what would appear on the actual LSAT - I've taken all the published LSAC tests during my time prepping, and just looking at the subject alone, the current question is off mark.

Btw, I bought their Manhattan GMAT books, and while their strategy guides were solid, their practice tests were Really Really unreflective of the actual test. (significant differences in feel and score for myself and 3 other friends)

Yeah, we definitely don't intend for our games to replace practice with real LSAT games. There are some games in our collection that are closer to the real ones than others. We actually decided that it's OK for us to go beyond the scope of the LSAT a bit to push folks to stretch themselves. I hope they're helpful, fun, and not harmful to any civilians!

The MGMAT CATs is a whole other topic and test. All I'll say is that I'm glad I personally don't have to figure out how to mimic a computer adaptive exam!

IMHO, questions from test prep companies are not "harder", they're just worse. Maybe LG is possible, but RC and LR will just be less precise, and you'll spend time figuring out wrong answers that are essentially just poorly executed imitations of the real thing.

I would stick to offical LSAT questions. Why bother with questions that arent real?
If you want to be an lsat guru- be able to explain in full detail why each answer is right or wrong, and pinpoint out all important elements in the stem ( and refer to them in your explinations).

I got a used copy of Complete Idiot's Guide to the LSAT for some extra LG practice once. The games were incredibly hard, primarily because the author didn't understand conditional reasoning and had misinterpreted his own "unless" statement. Spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why this game seemed impossible, several questions seemed to have no correct answer! Then checked the answer key, redid the question with the stupid interpretation of the unless statement (he basically thought it was a biconditional, typical mistake for beginners) and finished in 4 minutes. I then burned the book and buried the ashes at a crossroads.