I have been taking older prep-tests in order to expose myself to something different, practice less systematic games, because I have taken all the newer prep-tests and other varied reasons.
I tend to miss more LR questions on these sections than normal and I was wondering if this is something to be concerned about
Older LR Sections (Pre-2000) - missing more than normal Forum
-
Arad
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:17 pm
-
brooklynboy
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 10:58 pm
Re: Older LR Sections (Pre-2000) - missing more than normal
I don't think it is necessarily a cause for concern.
The important thing to ask yourself is why you missed each question that you did. What aspect of your process caused you to pass over the correct answer, and to put more stock than was justified in an incorrect choice? If you are able to answer that for yourself, I am sure you will learn things that will help you even for more recent tests.
On another note, even though you've already used up the recent tests, I suggest that you return to questions you missed on them every once in a while and re-work them. As you do so, think about whether the path to the correct answer now seems clear to you. If not, keep coming back to the problem until it does. If something is still unclear, use this forum as a resource! This past Thursday-Saturday, I did not do any new LSAT questions. Instead, I went over every single question from PTs 52-60 that I had circled while taking the test, and redid all of the logic games from those tests. I read the Manhattan forum explanations for each of those questions, as well. Then, on Sunday, I got my first ever 180, on PT 61. (Most of my PTs before that were 176 or 177, with the occasional <175 on an off day.) Correlation is not causation, but I am fairly certain that my review helped me to better understand the test.
The important thing to ask yourself is why you missed each question that you did. What aspect of your process caused you to pass over the correct answer, and to put more stock than was justified in an incorrect choice? If you are able to answer that for yourself, I am sure you will learn things that will help you even for more recent tests.
On another note, even though you've already used up the recent tests, I suggest that you return to questions you missed on them every once in a while and re-work them. As you do so, think about whether the path to the correct answer now seems clear to you. If not, keep coming back to the problem until it does. If something is still unclear, use this forum as a resource! This past Thursday-Saturday, I did not do any new LSAT questions. Instead, I went over every single question from PTs 52-60 that I had circled while taking the test, and redid all of the logic games from those tests. I read the Manhattan forum explanations for each of those questions, as well. Then, on Sunday, I got my first ever 180, on PT 61. (Most of my PTs before that were 176 or 177, with the occasional <175 on an off day.) Correlation is not causation, but I am fairly certain that my review helped me to better understand the test.
-
The Avatar
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:32 pm
Re: Older LR Sections (Pre-2000) - missing more than normal
Yea I found that I was breezing through the older LG which everyone says are supposedly harder but when I started to do the newer games, I had to change up my thinking a bit because of the lack of inferences in the initial setup. RC is very difficult from the 40s and 50s. I would say that the comparative passage actually makes it slightly easier now from then. LR is pretty steady and hasn't changed much except for some of the language and question types used.
You probably had to change up your thinking a bit for the older tests which explains the missing questions more than usual.
You probably had to change up your thinking a bit for the older tests which explains the missing questions more than usual.
