Old LSAT games harder... Forum

[Tainted_Praise]

Hey I know that the old lsat games are supposed to be harder.. But what concludes as hard? I'm doing practice tests from 1996/1997/1998 are these considered old lsat practice tests? So are the games here harder than the games nowadays?

"An attorney is scheduling interviews with witnesses for a given week, Monday through Saturday. Two full consecutive days of the week must be reserved for interviewing hostile witnesses. In addition, non hostile witnesses Q, R, U, X, Y, and Z will each be interviewed exactly once for a full morning or afternoon. The only witnesses who will be interviewed simotanteously with each other are Q an R. The following conditions apply:

X must be interviewed on thursday morning
q must be before x
u must be interviewed at some time before r
z must be interviewed at some time after x and at some time after y"

Is this considered than the games nowadays?

[seancris]

It's probably not allowed to post the exact text of an actual LSAT question online due to copyright issues.

But it's generally agreed that the older games were more complex than the more modern ones. Any tests before PT50 would be considered old IMO. The referenced question is from 1996 so it would be old as well.

If you want to compare old games to new games, google for June 2007 LSAT and you will be able to download a free copy of that PT.

[iphone7]

From my experience, the games before pt 30 were a mixed bag with some very hard and some pretty easy. Then the 30s were pretty difficult and it gets easier from there. Granted, I was improving at games through this process, but in my best attempt at objectivity and what I have heard other people confirm on here, that's my best guess.

[phx]

Games from PT 25 to 35 are generally considered the gauntlet. Games before PT 25 are definitely still hard, but it's more that they are a bit weirder and less consistent than actually "computationally" difficult. The earlier games are sometimes a little less formulaic.

[lakers3peat]

In my opinion, the games in the past were actually a lot easier then they are now. As far as I know, there are no more "pure sequencing games" where it's as simple as J > S T > D > B C etc. etc. Those, in my opinion, were some of the easisest games on the old tests because you make one big blueprint and go from there. That being said, there are also some real doozies tossed into the old tests along with some conceptually really weird ones, zendu radar game, zephyr airlines, etc.


FWIW: this is lsatblog's list of the 10 hardest: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/ha ... -hard.html



9 out of the 10 are between practice tests 20-40 but I don't like to generalize because I think conditions are variable between individual test takers.

[westinghouse60]

In my opinion, the games in the past were actually a lot easier then they are now. As far as I know, there are no more "pure sequencing games" where it's as simple as J > S T > D > B C etc. etc. Those, in my opinion, were some of the easisest games on the old tests because you make one big blueprint and go from there. That being said, there are also some real doozies tossed into the old tests along with some conceptually really weird ones, zendu radar game, zephyr airlines, etc.


FWIW: this is lsatblog's list of the 10 hardest: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/ha ... -hard.html



9 out of the 10 are between practice tests 20-40 but I don't like to generalize because I think conditions are variable between individual test takers.

Haha I've done 1-6 on that list in the past week or two, its good to know these are considered relatively harder (by someones standards at least). Personally I thought 1, 4, and 5 werent that bad, but 2, 3, and 6 killed me.