LRB Outdated? Forum

[scottyc66]

As I go through the LRB I can't help but notice that tons of the references come from tests in the early 2000s and their claims about how often the questions occur are also based on this information. I was just wondering if this has changed much over the past decade.

[BlaqBella]

Should it matter when your focus should be on the methods used? Besides, whether dated 10 years ago or most recent, the questions are all taken from real LSATs.

[Theopliske8711]

The Logical reasoning questions have changed in a way that can effect you should you do too many early tests and then suddenly move into the newer questions. They have improved upon LSAT language since those days, but still, you can learn a lot from the old questions and they still have plenty of value.

[scottyc66]

I definitely don't think it makes the book useless, I was just asking if it's outdated in some of these claims. The book makes certain claims about which topics should be studied more thoroughly than others based on the frequency with which they appear on the exam. I know there's less formal logic on the LSATs compared to several decades ago so the point of the question was really more out of curiosity. Obviously it doesn't change the way you study the material, but people make a point to say that finding the most up-to-date PTs is important so wouldn't the same logic apply to your study materials? Just because it's taken from a real LSAT doesn't mean it has the same value as more current information, or so I would assume.

[BlaqBella]

People around these parts still use the Powerscore Bibles to learn methods and apply the lessons learned to the real thing on test day. Generally speaking, the core structure of arguments and methods on how best to approach such arguments has not changed. An argument will always be an argument. The categories of argument types has not changed.

However, if you want to learn additional, more recent and helpful methods for LR, get the Manhattan LSAT collection. Though generally similar to PS, they are more succinct in approach, especially for LR.

[before2day]

not too sure about the trends but I learned LR through a prep course last year, forgot most of it, and turned to the LRB to refresh my memory recently. and it's worked out fine. Not too outdated and mostly in line with what I learned through the course

[Spartan_Alum_12]

It's working well for me. I've seen a ton of improvement in the way I approach questions. Finding a way to confidently attack each question type is excellent. The assumption negative technique/justify formula helped me answer those questions that I tend to struggle with. I thought the LRB and LGB were excellent, but the RCB not as much so. However, marking up passages in any way doesn't work for me.

[SumStalwart]

I think that the powerscore bibles are still useful. However, I would try using them in conjunction with the the manhattan guides-- they work extremely well together. Also, since LR hasn't changed too much (except the wording has become easier to understand), the older tests are still beneficial.

[sabanist]

I think that the powerscore bibles are still useful. However, I would try using them in conjunction with the the manhattan guides-- they work extremely well together. Also, since LR hasn't changed too much (except the wording has become easier to understand), the older tests are still beneficial.

TCR.

Plus, LRB's formal logic section is unparalleled. Understanding the relationships of somes, mosts, alls, etc. is essential to understanding much more than pure formal logic questions - I found they were frequently the basis of differences between otherwise indistinguishable answers. The test hasn't changed enough that the LRB is no longer a solid foundation, but I will say that Manhattan is worth its weight in gold as a supplement to the LRB.