more recent PTs seem harder than early 2000s? Forum

[rachue]

OK, I've asked this before to a test prep company and they told me that since the test is so standardized, it shouldn't really vary in difficulty from year to year (otherwise that would defeat the purpose of being able to use it as a standard of measure, at least for a 5 year period of time). However, I've done significantly better on tests from 2000ish than ones from 2008-09 (as in, like a ten point difference, so pretty significant). Has anyone else had this happen to them? Were they really harder or am I just imagining it?

[paul34]

...

[rachue]

OK, so it's not just me that the LG have DEFINITELY felt harder. Also, I think the RC is more nuanced as well. Yesterday I did a PT from 2009. I got -3 on the RC, but a -0 in RC passages from 94 that I used as my experimental.

So frustrating! If only we had taken this test even five years ago! haha

[imjustjoking22]

I thought it was generally agreed that the newer LGs were easier?

I wouldn't think about it too much... I think for most people their scores stay pretty consistent, so it may be that you just need more exposure to questions before your scores even out (rather than there being a big change in difficulty).

[paulshortys10]

I thought it was generally agreed that the newer LGs were easier?

I wouldn't think about it too much... I think for most people their scores stay pretty consistent, so it may be that you just need more exposure to questions before your scores even out (rather than there being a big change in difficulty).

Newer PT's are MUCH easier than Pt's in the 20's and 30's.....The only exception would be PT 62, which is hard as shit

[Easy-E]

There are some brutal games in the 30s. The record store one, the gem one (threw me at least), that one with the Suderton doctors where one of the rules made the game's diagram flawed. I haven't done too many recent ones, but for June '07 I found the first three easy and the last one very tricky, though I'm bad with that game type (in and out I believe).

[clouds101]

Compared to the rare games sprinkled in the earlier games, I think the recent games are easier to diagram and visualize. However, I think LG games from the 60s are harder in the sense that the questions are freaking time-consuming, esp with the introduction of the new question type (if we take out this rule, which one of these would be a good replacement). I've also noticed that there are a lot more global questions (must be true, cannot be true).

For RC, I agree with OP that it's more nuanced and that I have to be more skeptical of my initial reaction to answer choices.

For LR... does anyone find the weaken/strengthen questions to be more convoluted than the older ones? For instance, the PAH regulation question from PT 53 #10 Section 4....the correct answer counters the opposite team's contention while allowing for the opposite person's position to be true. That's pretty subtle, especially for a question so early in the section.

Edit: that example is a flaw. Here's a good example: PT 53 #8 Section 1, here's the url http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q8- ... 15ca65d122