When do LR sections start to feel like they do now? Forum

[mvonh001]

When do LR sections appear most similar to the one we will get on June test? I know some of you will say, "obviously 68 will be most like the one in June," But I want to know when they became that hard, or easy. For example, Did PT 40's LR section appear similar to 68's? Was the logic as formal, or was it more ambiguous? Did it contain those weirdly worded questions? And if so, when did they stop appearing as much?

Thanks

[totoro]

I actually thought 68 was more similar to the conventional LR sections that I was used to and had drilled many times in my practice; on the other hand 67 LR felt bizarre/weirder. So I wouldn't expect 'changes' on the LSAT to be uniformly tending towards something new. This being said, I know what you mean. On some recent tests there have been slightly weirder LR prompts than in the past, less formal logic, and tighter answer choices. I would say start from PT 60 to get what LR "feels like now" (this is judging by when my LR scores started tanking).

[Micdiddy]

The difference between pt 1 and pt 68 is extremely marginal compared to the logic used for any other test or facet of life. People like to over analyze things, but honestly the LSAT has mostly stayed the same.

[Clearly]

The difference between pt 1 and pt 68 is extremely marginal compared to the logic used for any other test or facet of life. People like to over analyze things, but honestly the LSAT has mostly stayed the same.

For real, people way overplay this angle. My theory is that many people prep loosely in order of PT's so as to save the most recent tests for last, thus by the time they get to them, they feel like their "more logical" or "more straightforward" and the only thing that's really changed is the damn student got better.

[totoro]

For real, people way overplay this angle. My theory is that many people prep loosely in order of PT's so as to save the most recent tests for last, thus by the time they get to them, they feel like their "more logical" or "more straightforward" and the only thing that's really changed is the damn student got better.

I actually disagree with this somewhat since I was going consistently -2-3 on LR for PTs 1-59 or so, and dropped to -6-7 on some of the 60s PTs. The scoring difference was pretty marked, and I took almost all the PTs in chronological order. i think the reason is that they started making a bigger deal towards detail , less problems on formal logic; also the wording on answer choices is more nuanced. The wording is tighter so I think I got away with looser logic before. Maybe people exaggerate the differences in how the sections have changed, but the differences themselves are still real, just slighter than youd think. The people who write the test today are different from the people who wrote it 20 years ago. So not everyone 'gets better' as you go, and for LR i felt the biggest change on the post-2010 tests. BUT, I do agree that the majority of the problems will look the same, many LR questions seem somewhat recycled from before. It's just a couple new ones they throw in each section that might throw you for a loop. This being said, it's more about exposure than a different skill. If you have truly mastered LR from your practice tests, you should score similarly on the June test. But if you have more time to spend on certain PTs, It makes the most sense to spend more time reviewing the most recent PTs (I.e. 2011-2012).

[RhymesLikeDimes]

Eh, I think it's overblown to some degree. But, LR questions from PTs 1-20~ are noticeably different than modern ones (in my opinion, much more stupid and ambiguous), late-30s-mid-40s gave me extra trouble, 50s were extra easy, 60s seem pretty normal (with the exception of 62, which was notoriously difficult).

I still drill from my PTs 1-20 LR book, in-between taking PTs from the 50s and 60s. There is a noticeable difference, but it shouldn't amount to much in your scores, as long as you have a good grasp of the fundamentals.

[mvonh001]

Eh, I think it's overblown to some degree. But, LR questions from PTs 1-20~ are noticeably different than modern ones (in my opinion, much more stupid and ambiguous), late-30s-mid-40s gave me extra trouble, 50s were extra easy, 60s seem pretty normal (with the exception of 62, which was notoriously difficult).

I still drill from my PTs 1-20 LR book, in-between taking PTs from the 50s and 60s. There is a noticeable difference, but it shouldn't amount to much in your scores, as long as you have a good grasp of the fundamentals.

Thanks, I have found this to be true as well. Also, when drilling from pt's 1-20 do you ever repeat questions? I have run out of material to drill from

[Clearly]

For real, people way overplay this angle. My theory is that many people prep loosely in order of PT's so as to save the most recent tests for last, thus by the time they get to them, they feel like their "more logical" or "more straightforward" and the only thing that's really changed is the damn student got better.

I actually disagree with this somewhat since I was going consistently -2-3 on LR for PTs 1-59 or so, and dropped to -6-7 on some of the 60s PTs. The scoring difference was pretty marked, and I took almost all the PTs in chronological order. i think the reason is that they started making a bigger deal towards detail , less problems on formal logic; also the wording on answer choices is more nuanced. The wording is tighter so I think I got away with looser logic before. Maybe people exaggerate the differences in how the sections have changed, but the differences themselves are still real, just slighter than youd think. The people who write the test today are different from the people who wrote it 20 years ago. So not everyone 'gets better' as you go, and for LR i felt the biggest change on the post-2010 tests. BUT, I do agree that the majority of the problems will look the same, many LR questions seem somewhat recycled from before. It's just a couple new ones they throw in each section that might throw you for a loop. This being said, it's more about exposure than a different skill. If you have truly mastered LR from your practice tests, you should score similarly on the June test. But if you have more time to spend on certain PTs, It makes the most sense to spend more time reviewing the most recent PTs (I.e. 2011-2012).

...I didnt say they weren't real...I said they were overblown.

[totoro]

...I didnt say they weren't real...I said they were overblown.

Well you did say for many people, the only thing that's really changed is the damn student got better. I just wanted to qualify for OP that a) there are still differences and b) that you may actually do worse on the very recent tests, just depending on your personal strengths & weaknesses (esp because some LR sections in the 50s were very straightforward) - so not to be surprised by this. But it's nothing that can't be overcome by thoroughly reviewing the ones that trip you up.. Don't feel like you need to study for a different test or anything.

And to answer OPs question, redoing LR sections is not nearly as useful as redoing LG. But it can be very helpful to review and come back to super hard ones from time to time to make sure you understand them. MLSAT has a useful forum with explanations to LR questions that you can use.

[Skill Game]

The older tests not only have the 2-question per stimulus ones, but also have some really weird questions that I could only describe as experimental. It's similar to the way that old LGs have a lot of unique games. And there are a lot of times when you could make a damn good case for 2 or even 3 different answers for some questions. But they seem to have really tightened their game and made things more clearly discernible and uniform. So while some things might be harder, this consistency definitely helps.