Top Law Schools

I know some people find early PTS a lot easier than newer ones and vice versa, and if people want to give their $.02 about that I welcome the contributions. For me though I seem to be reading that the RC on the earlier tests are way easier than the later tests. How do you guys recommend people prepare for the newer RC questions without going through the more recent PTs (I am hoping to use these for full length timed tests as opposed to section review)?

Thanks!

For me, the RC may have gotten a little bit harder, but it seemed to me that the questions stayed fairly similar. I think of all the sections, earlier RCs match up fairly well with their later versions (w/ the exception of the comparative reading). LR and LG sections seem to have a whole different "feel" in the later tests.

Honestly, the best way to prepare for RC is to have been reading your whole life, and after that any LSAT RC section is going to help you. The later ones will certainly be closer to what you see on test day, but the skills needed to do well on the later ones can be developed with the early ones.

Use the later ones as full-length practice tests to prepare for the actual test day scenario. Use the early ones to prepare yourself for the individual sections of the full-length practice tests, and don't worry about the slight differences b/w the old and new ones.

Reading Comprehension is def harder on the new ones. I noticed that about a week ago taking the 50's

westjr,

Nice avatar . Thanks for the tips. Have you taken the test yet and if so what'd you score, if you don't mind me asking?

I hit between -1 to -4 on older RCs (30s and below). But on RCs in the 60s, I've been hitting scores like -6, -8 and -9. So take that for it's worth. I certainly think the newer ones are tougher, and you don't get better at them until you start practicing with them as opposed to the older ones. So that leaves one in a bind. You can't drill 50s and 60s stuff because you want it for PTs. I've decided that I'm gonna use 40s tests as drilling material and drill those RCs, as they seem to be fairly comparable in difficulty to the most recent stuff. They don't include comparative passages, but I'm good with those anyway.

Now, there is a caveat with my perceived difficulty of modern RC over older RC: I've never taken the older RCs in full-length practice tests. Maybe it's the structure of taking the test that's messing with me a bit. But still, I do think the modern RCs demand more subtle inferences and a much closer reading of the text.

LG, if anything, may be easier. But I attribute perceived easiness to just getting better at LG.

I prefer LR on the newer tests too. Language is cleaner and arguments not as clunky.

Southbridge wrote:westjr,

Nice avatar . Thanks for the tips. Have you taken the test yet and if so what'd you score, if you don't mind me asking?

Glad you like it! I hoped for similar inspiration on test day.

And yes, I took the test in June, 176.

Otunga wrote: Now, there is a caveat with my perceived difficulty of modern RC over older RC: I've never taken the older RCs in full-length practice tests. Maybe it's the structure of taking the test that's messing with me a bit. But still, I do think the modern RCs demand more subtle inferences and a much closer reading of the text.

I think that that may be the difference. I didn't find new RC to be significantly different than the earlier ones, but certainly somewhat harder.

Regardless, I would say the 40s tests are much closer to the 50s and 60s than any pre-30 test, for example.

I took a few of the newer tests to begin my studying and I went down to -4 on RC where as in the older tests, I've done probably 5 so far and for the life of me can't get past below -7 although I'm pretty sure I can improve. I personally the comparative reading parts so that was a big factor.

LG is ridiculous on some of the older tests.

DivineJustice wrote:I took a few of the newer tests to begin my studying and I went down to -4 on RC where as in the older tests, I've done probably 5 so far and for the life of me can't get past below -7 although I'm pretty sure I can improve. I personally the comparative reading parts so that was a big factor.

LG is ridiculous on some of the older tests.

I think if you can nail old lg, you are golden for new lg. old lg was so much more deduction based

I'm practicing only on older lsats 1-50 and leaving the newest 15 pts for the last month before october test. However, this approach keeps me clueless about good predictions for real performance. Recent PTs will give a better idea of October test, but is the gap really big between old pts and newer ones?

I wouldn't get to do newer PTs until september leaving little time to improve. If there's some good way to distribute newer PTs early in the prep, it would be useful to know.

Strongly agree that RC has gotten slightly harder as time goes on.

I could guarantee a -0 on RC on the older tests; now I'm lucky to get a -3.

The newer LR questions have a slightly different flavor and it's a flavor I really, really don't like. I was going -1 for a while on them and then got a -5 on a newer test.