Earlier Tests Harder or Easier? Forum

[westjr]

Ok, so I'm taking the June LSAT. I've finished going through the powerscore bibles, and I'm on to practice tests. I'm wondering, have you guys found the earlier tests to be easier or harder than the more recent tests?

I've taken tests: (7, 9, 19, 20, 21); (39, 40, 41). I did better on the first group than on the second.

[qwertyboard]

I think if there was a change in difficulty of the test then it is harder now. But more than that I think there was a change in emphasis. Now RC gets more emphasis and you can't really do much about RC besides getting familiar with the types of essays etc. So a lot of people see their average scores drop down a bit when they start taking more recent tests. I personally scored low 170 in the late 90s tests and then saw a consistent drop in my average scores as I took recent tests.

[westjr]

Yeah, I took my first two practice tests (7 and 9) and scored 178s on both of them. Then, I took #40 right after that to see if there was any major drop and scored a 170. However, I found the LR more difficult on those later ones. RC is probably my strongest section.

[qwertyboard]

Yeah, I took my first two practice tests (7 and 9) and scored 178s on both of them. Then, I took #40 right after that to see if there was any major drop and scored a 170. However, I found the LR more difficult on those later ones. RC is probably my strongest section.

The you're blessed! RC is really the least learnable section. Prepare a schedule with at least one test a week (max 2) and review it thoroughly. Good luck.

[Kharon542]

Where would the Superprep tests fall? Personally I found A, and B to be pretty brutal.

[NoodleyOne]

I'm of the mind that the difference, other than some peculiarities in early tests, are overstated. Generally, I think a 177 on an early test will probably correlate to the same score band on a later test most of the time. The biggest difference is less awkward wording on some early LR, game types that simply don't appear anymore (mapping, circular ordering), and comparative reading, but none of these are game changers and all of these are worth going over.

[tomwatts]

The earlier tests aren't harder or easier, just a little different (though not very). There are the obvious things: they don't have comparative reading, the game types can be a little weird, they still have some paired LR questions, etc. There are also more subtle stylistic things that probably don't matter except to the obsessed (test-prep teachers like me).

39, 40, and 41 are kind of old at this point, too. The most recent tests (60+) are a little different, too, although the jump from 7 to 41 is probably greater than the jump from 41 to 64.

[westjr]

The earlier tests aren't harder or easier, just a little different (though not very). There are the obvious things: they don't have comparative reading, the game types can be a little weird, they still have some paired LR questions, etc. There are also more subtle stylistic things that probably don't matter except to the obsessed (test-prep teachers like me).

39, 40, and 41 are kind of old at this point, too. The most recent tests (60+) are a little different, too, although the jump from 7 to 41 is probably greater than the jump from 41 to 64.

So I've scheduled myself to take about 30 more tests between now and the June exam. Should I even bother with anything before (around) PT 35?

[NoodleyOne]

I hope you're doing more than just PTing. You should be working on games and LR by type, which is what old tests are predominately for, and then checking your progress through PTs.

PTs are about tracking your progress, they shouldn't be the totality of your prep.

[westjr]

I hope you're doing more than just PTing. You should be working on games and LR by type, which is what old tests are predominately for, and then checking your progress through PTs.

PTs are about tracking your progress, they shouldn't be the totality of your prep.

I'm not doing more than just PTing...

[tomwatts]

The earlier tests aren't harder or easier, just a little different (though not very). There are the obvious things: they don't have comparative reading, the game types can be a little weird, they still have some paired LR questions, etc. There are also more subtle stylistic things that probably don't matter except to the obsessed (test-prep teachers like me).

39, 40, and 41 are kind of old at this point, too. The most recent tests (60+) are a little different, too, although the jump from 7 to 41 is probably greater than the jump from 41 to 64.

So I've scheduled myself to take about 30 more tests between now and the June exam. Should I even bother with anything before (around) PT 35?

If you're going to do 30 more, do the 30 most recent ones. If you want to do more than that, include older ones, too. They're not very different, just a little different.