Top Law Schools

I know the consensus that the LG section has been easier and the RC more challenging in recent years. What I haven't heard much about is the difference in the Logical Reasoning sections over the years? Companies offer every LR question from PT1-20, PT21-40, and PT41-60. Obviously, the most recent test prep materials are likely to be most representative of an upcoming test. I am trying to discern whether there is a substantive difference in these three LSAT epochs (if you will). Hopefully someone can provide me with some info to assist my attempts at efficiency this final month before December 3.

Thanks,
Adam

1-30 are a bit vague. 30 - 40 are hard, but might be good prep. 40 - 60 are regular, slightly more clear. I'm 55ish and I like the change, but maybe thats just because I've improved.

Also tests in the late 40s are generally considered to be easier, so they might not be the best to get in you a right state of mind as they can make you overconfident.

There are differences, but I never found them to be substantial. Whereas old RC and LG can be sometimes unhelpful, I think it's very useful to drill old LR questions.

The early questions were a bit wild-west, but as the tests progressed they become a lot more streamlined (i.e. the test really started falling into patterns for the question prompts, making it much easier to ID the type). Also, certain question types have been showing up a lot less frequently, while others are showing up more often (don't remember which off the top of my head but you'll notice this when you take the tests).

That said, it's still absolutely worth doing the old questions, but just take the results with a grain of salt.

the_pakalypse wrote:1-30 are a bit vague. 30 - 40 are hard, but might be good prep. 40 - 60 are regular, slightly more clear. I'm 55ish and I like the change, but maybe thats just because I've improved.

Also tests in the late 40s are generally considered to be easier, so they might not be the best to get in you a right state of mind as they can make you overconfident.

I agree with this. I found the more recent LR questions to be more airtight and clearer. Certainly fewer WTF moments than earlier tests.

I have taken only old PTs so far. Average about -5 per LR section. Did you guys find that your scored better on the newer ones since there were less "WTF" questions?

noleknight16 wrote:I have taken only old PTs so far. Average about -5 per LR section. Did you guys find that your scored better on the newer ones since there were less "WTF" questions?

I scored better on the new PT's but then blew it on the real test.

noleknight16 wrote:I have taken only old PTs so far. Average about -5 per LR section. Did you guys find that your scored better on the newer ones since there were less "WTF" questions?

Doing mostly PT's 20-40, I would get anywhere from -3 to -8 on each LR section. Ended up getting -5 and -3 on the October 2011 LSAT, so a bit better than my average, I guess.

I think if you are really good/really bad the differences aren't as apparent, but I'm kinda in the middle so here's my observation.

Early ones are really kinda wild-west, anything can happen. A lot of thinking outside the box, roundabout stuff. I got into the habit of reading premise first instead of q-stem first, since you had to have a good grasp of premise inter-relationships. (Hence Powerscore recommends premise-first).

Later ones (40+) became very conclusion-centric, and trap answers became more sophisticated. Tiny scope shifts became king. Also, the range of flaw possibilities narrowed, for example, all survey questions were probably about unrepresentative samples. So like LG, narrower range, but more precise. Switching to q-stem first (Like Manhattan recommends) made a lot of sense now, since identifying the conclusion provided the best frame of mind for getting rid of "out of scope" answers.

Lately...(58+?) I've noticed a push back towards less conclusion-centric, and different flaw types. However, answer choices have retained their sophistication, and they've started including time-waster traps. They'll have a decently attractive answers written in a convoluted way that takes a while to de-tangle. Whether its right or wrong, you've wasted 20 seconds either way. They aren't tricking you, they are just wasting your time so you have less for later problems.

Anyone else notice anything similar?