Top Law Schools

Does anyone recommend doing these earlier PrepTests 1-28? If so, would you do them in full-timed format or just section by section?

jkupps2415 wrote:Does anyone recommend doing these earlier PrepTests 1-28? If so, would you do them in full-timed format or just section by section?

If you have the time to do them then i see no reason not to. You could use them as experimental sections

Is there any reason why the more recent ones are any better than these? Are some of the question formats on the old ones obsolete or something?

I've heard that LR is pretty similar, RCs a bit easier and LG is a bit harder. I still think you get a lot out of them as long as you don't base your progress/expectations on your results in these earlier tests.

I recommend using the earlier tests as scrap tests, not full tests. Use them as a source of targeted practice, timing drills, etc.

The questions individually are similar to many questions that appear on modern tests, but overall the score from those tests won't be a good reflection of your current capability.

bhan87 wrote:I recommend using the earlier tests as scrap tests, not full tests. Use them as a source of targeted practice, timing drills, etc.

The questions individually are similar to many questions that appear on modern tests, but overall the score from those tests won't be a good reflection of your current capability.

So essentially I should just do each section for further individual practice, as opposed to taking a full-length test and basing my potential on that score?

I'm using some of those as experimental sections. I also bought a book that has the hardest questions from 1-28, to refine my LR skills.

Unfortunately I didn't do any of the tests past 2003 before the June LSAT. The biggest difference is the comparative section on RC, and that logic games have added new rules you won't see in the old tests. I took a lot more time on LG on the June test because two of the questions had rules I had never seen before.

I agree with the advice to use them for type drilling and experimental sections.

Related question: How would you say LR difficulty trends across 1-40?

I have worked most all of them, but was curious if anyone has noticed a spike in difficulty besides PTs 50+. I am sure people with Cambridge LR type bundles have noticed some pattern, if there is one.

jkupps2415 wrote:Is there any reason why the more recent ones are any better than these? Are some of the question formats on the old ones obsolete or something?

Some of the games, such as mapping games, are obsolete. I don't think LSAC has "officially" retired them, but we have't seen them in about 15 years, so it would be a big surprise if they showed up again.

IMO, everything else is close enough for gub'ment work.