Top Law Schools

Can anyone tell me specifically what PTs this book (2006 edition) draws from? I know it's the older tests, but from what I've read it jumps around a bit.

Also, I see it on amazon for around $50 and then for around $500 new. The cheaper copy is noted as "Never been used". Is that kind of price disparity normal, considering the $500 is sold by some college book store site, or is the cheaper one most likely used.

Thanks guys.

Why look for the 2006 edition in particular? There are lots of old editions (they vary in PTs used, and I don't know about the 2006 edition in particular, but I know the 2008 edition draws from from the vast majority of PTs from 5-41).

Yes, that kind of price variation is normal for used books on Amazon. Some sellers list books at absurd prices and hope to get lucky. (A copy of PT40 is going for $999.99.) However, if you look through different product listings for Mastery Practice, you can likely find a good deal for a copy in new or like-new condition (under $30ish).

Different editions will draw from different PTs. It's best to have Mastery (questions sorted by type and difficulty), timing (just single sections, and endurance (full practice tests together) for a particular year (they divide up PTs so questions aren't reused). I think in the last 2 years or so they may have changed the format around a little. Mastery is definitely the most helpful of the three though, because it allows you to concentrate on question types. More recent mastery books are better than the older ones (like 2006). Old ones are much shorter.

Interwebz. Not internet. Not interweb. Interwebz

LSAT Blog wrote:Why look for the 2006 edition in particular? There are lots of old editions (they vary in PTs used, and I don't know about the 2006 edition in particular, but I know the 2008 edition draws from from the vast majority of PTs from 5-41).

2006 just happened to be the one I had tabbed on Amazon at the time. I just wanted to make sure they didn't pull anything from the most recent material, but I doesn't appear that will be an issue. Thanks!

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:PTs. It's best to have Mastery (questions sorted by type and difficulty), timing (just single sections, and endurance (full practice tests together) for a particular year (they divide up PTs so questions aren't reused). I think in the last 2 years or so they may have changed the format around a little. Mastery is definitely the most helpful of the three though, because it allows you to concentrate on question types. More recent mastery books are better than

I'm going for the Mastery book as a supplement to my other materials. I'm doing Velocity, but that only spans PT30 and up, so I figured some LR/RC practice from older tests would be beneficial, particularly for drilling a problematic question type. From what I understand, the old LR are harder and the old RC easier, but in terms of question types they are pretty similar to present material.

emarxnj wrote:

LSAT Blog wrote:Why look for the 2006 edition in particular? There are lots of old editions (they vary in PTs used, and I don't know about the 2006 edition in particular, but I know the 2008 edition draws from from the vast majority of PTs from 5-41).

2006 just happened to be the one I had tabbed on Amazon at the time. I just wanted to make sure they didn't pull anything from the most recent material, but I doesn't appear that will be an issue. Thanks!

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:PTs. It's best to have Mastery (questions sorted by type and difficulty), timing (just single sections, and endurance (full practice tests together) for a particular year (they divide up PTs so questions aren't reused). I think in the last 2 years or so they may have changed the format around a little. Mastery is definitely the most helpful of the three though, because it allows you to concentrate on question types. More recent mastery books are better than

I'm going for the Mastery book as a supplement to my other materials. I'm doing Velocity, but that only spans PT30 and up, so I figured some LR/RC practice from older tests would be beneficial, particularly for drilling a problematic question type. From what I understand, the old LR are harder and the old RC easier, but in terms of question types they are pretty similar to present material.

More or less true. Older LR def tends to be wordier, which is annoying at times, especially by section 5.