LSAT 1-68 Forum

[Darmody]

I've heard from different sources that starting (drilling/PTs) at 20 to 68 (or the most recent) is good. Are 1-20 not the same review quality or are they vastly different than the modern version of the test? Should I spend time and money on these or just focus more on the newer ones and repeating through them?

[Pure Protein]

.

[Darmody]

Any reason why 39-52 are not sold together and are more expensive? Are they better for review or something?

[meegee]

Any reason why 39-52 are not sold together and are more expensive? Are they better for review or something?

So they (they referring to "the man") can make more money.

Actually I really don't know, but I honestly suspect they (LSAC) make more money off of purchases of individual PTs than the bundles sold.

I don't think they are better for review or "something." All the PTs are great for review/drilling/PTing. The more recent ones will be more indicative of what your LSAT will actually be like.

[Reframe]

Older tests are simply less relevant. Old games will often look and feel almost nothing like new games; old logical reasoning questions are phrased oddly; old reading comp is just easy. It's very good to keep looking at the newer material all throughout your preparation so that you maintain a sense of what exactly you're going to be asked to do when you sit for a real, modern test.

[Darmody]

Older tests are simply less relevant. Old games will often look and feel almost nothing like new games; old logical reasoning questions are phrased oddly; old reading comp is just easy. It's very good to keep looking at the newer material all throughout your preparation so that you maintain a sense of what exactly you're going to be asked to do when you sit for a real, modern test.

It can't hurt though, right? Or will it throw me off, in terms of strategy and mindset, from what I'm used to seeing from the recent tests?

[magickware]

While the style has changed, it's still worth doing the earlier ones for practice. The question type format are still the same, and they're valuable practice.

It's just that you should consider more recent tests (50+) to be more indicative of your actual score than the earlier ones.

[bp shinners]

While the style has changed, it's still worth doing the earlier ones for practice. The question type format are still the same, and they're valuable practice.

Yep, the logic and format are the same. It's just that they got better at writing what they wanted to write over the years, so more recent tests are "tighter."

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Any reason why 39-52 are not sold together and are more expensive? Are they better for review or something?

So they (they referring to "the man") can make more money.

Actually I really don't know, but I honestly suspect they (LSAC) make more money off of purchases of individual PTs than the bundles sold.

I don't think they are better for review or "something." All the PTs are great for review/drilling/PTing. The more recent ones will be more indicative of what your LSAT will actually be like.

The LSAC is a mess when it comes to licensing and distribution of their content. You can't even get LSATs 39-51 on amazon. If you go to their website, you can't buy 39-42, 45, or 50.

For a while, the LSAC resisted putting LSATs 52-61 into a single book, arguing that there wasn't much demand. At least, I think I remember reading that on LSAT Blog a couple years ago.

Having dealt with their administrative contact for licensing (it's like pulling teeth), I suspect the issue is actually incompetence. Your best bet is to get these tests online, a few sites sell them. They are indeed more useful than earlier tests.

[ScottRiqui]

Looking at the earlier tests, I see that several of them had curves in the -15/16/17 range. Did people walk out of those just wanting to put a gun in their mouth, or what? Nowadays, it seems like a "hard" test gets a -12 or so.

[magickware]

Lack of stuff to work with. We now have 69 available PTs to work with. That's a lot of material.

Imagine taking the LSAT back in '93. That would have sucked real bad for me.