Top Law Schools

I thought I remembered someone saying that LSAC changed the test in 1997 or so, but a quick search of the forum yielded no useful results. I currently own the two most recent collections of ten LSAT prep tests published by LSAC, so my newbie question is, is it worthwhile to study the earlier two books, as well, or are they out-of-date and irrelevant to the current test structure?

.

The 'modern' LSAT started in 1991. All those preptests you can get will be modern (starting from 1..or 7 to the currents 60s according to the LSAC numbering).

In 2007, they introduced one 'comparative reading' passage in the reading comprehension section. So while that's something the 'older' (but still modern) tests miss, it's not that big of a deal. If you can understand one passage, it's not too hard to move on and compare two passages...I almost find it slightly easier. So i wouldn't worry too much. Obviously, if you have less time to go through every PT, use more of the later ones (from 40s on), but most will be helpful.

I actually feel like the older tests are a bit easier than the newer tests at least in LR and RC. Games can be weirder though. Keep those things in mind when you do the older tests.

Are some prep tests too old to be worth studying?

If you have enough time to do them all, no. If you only have time for X number of tests, then go X far back and do every test up to the the most recent.

no

The old logic games are a bit weird. The old LR is a bit more formal logic based.

But if someone mastered the 1993 LSAT, they'd do very well on the new LSATs. The differences are real, but their importance has been exaggerated. If you have the time, it's worth using old tests.

"Any modern LSAT can be useful regardless of the date it appeared. Do not fall prey to the misconception that only LSATs from the last several years are useful. Remember, we are discussing Logical Reasoning and logic has not changed for thousands of years. Any LSAT June 1991 to the present can teach you something about the way the test is constructed." - LR Bible

.

I took this past June LSAT and I can tell you that, if you're worried about the disparity in the difficulty levels of more recent RCs and their 90's counterparts, you may not have to for long. The JUNE 2012 LSAT featured RCs that were very reminiscent of the 90s; they were SOOOO MUCH EASIER than RCs from the mid 2000's. I don't know if this is a new longterm trend, but if it is any indication of a shift in focus by LSAC, your 90's tests won't be very different from what you'll see in October.

Noitaraperp wrote:I actually feel like the older tests are a bit easier than the newer tests at least in LR and RC. Games can be weirder though. Keep those things in mind when you do the older tests.

I feel the complete opposite that the older PT's have harder LR and RC. Every time I try to do an old PT it is mostly the entire time.

Remember too that older tests have two-part LR questions. I'm not sure when this was phased out but I do know that it has appeared on experimental sections on recent tests, so these may be coming back. Definitely worth studying them all, just make sure you lead up to the most recent as you get closer to the test date.

Clarity wrote:

Noitaraperp wrote:I actually feel like the older tests are a bit easier than the newer tests at least in LR and RC. Games can be weirder though. Keep those things in mind when you do the older tests.

I feel the complete opposite that the older PT's have harder LR and RC. Every time I try to do an old PT it is mostly the entire time.

Me too. Way less wtf moments on modern tests.