Weird LR Trends in the 60s? Forum

[drumstickies]

I took PT 62 last week and went -7 on the first LR and -0 on the second LR. Today, on PT 63, I went -0 on the first LR and -7 on the second LR. And, just for context, the average of my last 5 PTs is 174, with a range of 171 (PT 62) and 177 (PT 61). Am I just getting burnt out? I've been working close to 70 hours the past few weeks and have been exhausted. Or are some LR sections just way harder than others? I'm not even sure what's going on... I don't really see how I can go -0 on one LR section and -7 on the other two PTs in a row. Has anyone else noticed this?

[Archangel]

I took PT 62 last week and went -7 on the first LR and -0 on the second LR. Today, on PT 63, I went -0 on the first LR and -7 on the second LR. And, just for context, the average of my last 5 PTs is 174, with a range of 171 (PT 62) and 177 (PT 61). Am I just getting burnt out? I've been working close to 70 hours the past few weeks and have been exhausted. Or are some LR sections just way harder than others? I'm not even sure what's going on... I don't really see how I can go -0 on one LR section and -7 on the other two PTs in a row. Has anyone else noticed this?

Yes, you may be slightly burnt and a day or two away may help. As for your second question, yes some sections are harder than others. The following links may help...
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid/153 ... lty-Varies
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid/172 ... Difficulty
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/
Lastly, yes I've noticed a difference in the newer tests i.e., dual principle application question stimulus.

[magickware]

I am personally of the opinion that LR from PT 61ish onward are harder for imperceptible reasons.

Maybe they hide the assumptions better, or maybe it really is burn-out.

In any case, I tend to get them more wrong too. Even if I have done them before.

[Otunga]

I find them easier, and 50s LR generally tougher. I hit many more -4s and -5s on 50s LR than 60s LR, with more 60s LR at -2 and -3. I haven't done worse than -6 (due to 3 omits) on the 60s, with a -10 coming on a 50s test and a -9 coming on a 40s test (all within the last couple months).

One question type I notice that's significantly different from previous LR is the principle/application-type question. Again, most of those emphasize conditional logic, so if you're good with that, then it's not a big deal.

[crestor]

I find them easier, and 50s LR generally tougher. I hit many more -4s and -5s on 50s LR than 60s LR, with more 60s LR at -2 and -3. I haven't done worse than -6 (due to 3 omits) on the 60s, with a -10 coming on a 50s test and a -9 coming on a 40s test (all within the last couple months).

One question type I notice that's significantly different from previous LR is the principle/application-type question. Again, most of those emphasize conditional logic, so if you're good with that, then it's not a big deal.

I found all of 60 LRto be easier also except 69...

[Otunga]

I find them easier, and 50s LR generally tougher. I hit many more -4s and -5s on 50s LR than 60s LR, with more 60s LR at -2 and -3. I haven't done worse than -6 (due to 3 omits) on the 60s, with a -10 coming on a 50s test and a -9 coming on a 40s test (all within the last couple months).

One question type I notice that's significantly different from previous LR is the principle/application-type question. Again, most of those emphasize conditional logic, so if you're good with that, then it's not a big deal.

I found all of 60 LRto be easier also except 69...

Me too. 69's the only LR that really gave me trouble. LR1 was -5 (no omits here) while LR2 was -0. I took it a couple months ago and I'm retaking it as my last test before 70.

[wtrc]

When I first started doing 60's, my LR scores went down, but only a bit. As some other posters itt said, they are more precise with wording in some answer choices, and it threw me off, but I think I am used to it now.

69 was a little weird, and they tried to get tricky (twice, the stem said "X and Y AGREE on.." rather than "disagree." They've done it before, but not twice in one test, and not for a bit.

FWIW, I had an experimental section when I took 69 for real that was kind of bizarre, including some tough questions in the first 6. LSAC might be gearing up for big changes.

[Otunga]

When I first started doing 60's, my LR scores went down, but only a bit. As some other posters itt said, they are more precise with wording in some answer choices, and it threw me off, but I think I am used to it now.

69 was a little weird, and they tried to get tricky (twice, the stem said "X and Y AGREE on.." rather than "disagree." They've done it before, but not twice in one test, and not for a bit.

FWIW, I had an experimental section when I took 69 for real that was kind of bizarre, including some tough questions in the first 6. LSAC might be gearing up for big changes.

I'm done just dismissing q 5-10 as 'gimmes'. 1-4? Maybe. But too often lately I've had some questions in the 5-10 range that have given me trouble, and as evidenced by the MLSAT forums, they've given plenty of others trouble too. And these are questions on the 50s and 60s.

[drumstickies]

Thanks for the responses. So some of you guys actually find the 60s easier than the 50s? By the end of the 50s and for 60 and 61, I was getting -1 to -3 for both sections. Then 62 and 63 hit, and I went for a tailspin. I'm hoping this is more of a fatigue issue than it is a content issue... In the meantime, I'll just be drilling...

[magickware]

Honestly? My bet would be that those guys have a better understanding of certain LR rules than you and I do.

And that's why they're doing better on those PTs. I'm fairly certain they are more technical, but not anymore difficult.

[vuthy]

What I found is that on 60s LR (no matter when I took them during the last few months), I was in a narrow range between -3 and -5 combined. With 40s and 50s LR, it was way more volatile (like -1 to -10). I attribute that to the fact that the older LR seemed to reward "cleverness" a bit more, while the new ones are probably more about analytical precision. Since cleverness can ebb and flow, depending on the question and on the day, my scores were more variable.

Or, if you like golf: pre-60s LR was like Couples or Daly, while post-60s LR is more like Adam Scott or Justin Rose.

[crestor]

When I first started doing 60's, my LR scores went down, but only a bit. As some other posters itt said, they are more precise with wording in some answer choices, and it threw me off, but I think I am used to it now.

69 was a little weird, and they tried to get tricky (twice, the stem said "X and Y AGREE on.." rather than "disagree." They've done it before, but not twice in one test, and not for a bit.

FWIW, I had an experimental section when I took 69 for real that was kind of bizarre, including some tough questions in the first 6. LSAC might be gearing up for big changes.

the experimental that comes up on a test doesn't appear on the real test for a year or so i'm pretty sure... somebody posted in the june 2013 waiting thread that the RC on this test (farming, doodoo birds) was their experimental in December 2011. i HIGHLY doubt LSAC would put a real section on October that was just an experimental on the same JUNE EXAM...

Why? If someone took a test in June had this LR experimental like you, cancelled or is retaking, and sits for October, he has a HUGE advantage...