Is there a point in taking old PTs? Forum

[admitmenowplzkthxbai]

Sorry if this question's already been asked (am I just bad at using the search feature?).

Is there a point in taking old practice tests or tests containing questions you've already seen before? I took a class a couple of months ago and did a lot of practice questions. As I've been taking new PTs, I've been realizing that in a lot of them that I've seen logic games and logical reasoning questions that I've seen before. While I don't usually automatically remember what the answer was (or even if I got the question right or wrong previously), I'm worried that I'm just wasting my time with these tests. Previously my highest score on PTs was 166, but lately I've gotten a 167, 172, and 177, but I don't want to give myself a false sense of security.

Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated!

[Hornet2011]

While some sections have got easier / harder slightly over time, there is still a lot of value in doing the old practice tests in my opinion. You see new fresh questions that are pretty much the same as current test questions. That being said, as you get close to test week I would revisit the newest tests as I do feel the last 10 or so "feel" different than previous tests

[fredfred]

Sorry if this question's already been asked (am I just bad at using the search feature?).

Is there a point in taking old practice tests or tests containing questions you've already seen before? I took a class a couple of months ago and did a lot of practice questions. As I've been taking new PTs, I've been realizing that in a lot of them that I've seen logic games and logical reasoning questions that I've seen before. While I don't usually automatically remember what the answer was (or even if I got the question right or wrong previously), I'm worried that I'm just wasting my time with these tests. Previously my highest score on PTs was 166, but lately I've gotten a 167, 172, and 177, but I don't want to give myself a false sense of security.

Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated!

Take every lsat possible, including the first ones given. I bet you if you took 3 completely fresh tests like LSAT 17, 18, 19, you will be varying a little more on the lower end of your score range. If you remember a single question from practice on an LSAT and you answer in some way was affected by your memory, then your score is not a clear reflection of your current abilities. On the real exam, you will not have that luxury of a sense of security at any point on the real thing.

Anyway the upshot I guess is do every lsat until you are completely out of new material. Also to note the most recently given LSATS have been bringing back logic games that haven't been seen since the first 15 or so tests. So it is always good to practice.

Also to note- I had a mid 170s score. I took every lsat given 1-76 at least twice. I credit my score at least in part to being familiar with old school logic games which crushed a ton of people on the June exam.

[admitmenowplzkthxbai]

Thanks you two! Really helpful thoughts and advice

[lymenheimer]

To add to this, though the test has changed (minimally), the questions are generally the same and you will go through the same processes to get your result (breakdowns for LR, LG diagrams, etc.). The main difference that I noticed was the set up of some LRs (stimuli with more than one question stem associated) and the RCs were a bit different. My current schedule is focused around drilling the older tests and PTing with the new ones (since I haven't seen the new ones yet), and I find that, as said above, the new ones will help you understand the style of the newer tests. But I will change and mix in some older timed PTs if I feel like my score is being inflated at all. But I would second the above statements about being exposed to the past tests (especially games) helping a lot. If nothing else, it will open your mind to be ready for anything on test day and, as someone who took the June test, I was very glad that I had done just that (went -0 on LG).

[admitmenowplzkthxbai]

To add to this, though the test has changed (minimally), the questions are generally the same and you will go through the same processes to get your result (breakdowns for LR, LG diagrams, etc.). The main difference that I noticed was the set up of some LRs (stimuli with more than one question stem associated) and the RCs were a bit different. My current schedule is focused around drilling the older tests and PTing with the new ones (since I haven't seen the new ones yet), and I find that, as said above, the new ones will help you understand the style of the newer tests. But I will change and mix in some older timed PTs if I feel like my score is being inflated at all. But I would second the above statements about being exposed to the past tests (especially games) helping a lot. If nothing else, it will open your mind to be ready for anything on test day and, as someone who took the June test, I was very glad that I had done just that (went -0 on LG).

Thanks for your input, lymenheimer! I'll definitely pay attention to the earlier/rare types of games.

I guess my concern was not so much taking "old"/early tests, but taking full-length PTs containing questions/games I've already seen before (with the caveat that I don't usually automatically remember what the answer was (that is, I still have to think through the stimuli, set up and do the games, etc.)). But if I'm understanding what you're all saying correctly, there is still some value in "going through the same [thinking] processes to get your result)." So thankfully it appears that I'm not completely wasting my time.

[lymenheimer]

Thanks for your input, lymenheimer! I'll definitely pay attention to the earlier/rare types of games.

I guess my concern was not so much taking "old"/early tests, but taking full-length PTs containing questions/games I've already seen before (with the caveat that I don't usually automatically remember what the answer was (that is, I still have to think through the stimuli, set up and do the games, etc.)). But if I'm understanding what you're all saying correctly, there is still some value in "going through the same [thinking] processes to get your result)." So thankfully it appears that I'm not completely wasting my time.

Yea I did skirt that topic. If I would have had your ear prior to you taking the course, I would have suggested to avoid the drilling that they offer since they split it up between PTs and, if your resources are limited, can cut down on your availability of full length tests. I don't know how they actually split it up (since I've never done a course), but if they kept it between 4 or 5 PTs, then it is easy enough to work around those for timed scoring. However, if they have a deep pool of drilling questions that span numerous tests, it may be a bit more difficult. I would not hold too much weight on a test that you have seen questions before, especially if you recognize the questions. I scored my highest on a PT that I had done before and was shy of that score on test day (when I had peak performance on my previous attempt). It is a bit harder to say when you don't recognize the problem, but even subconsciously there is some recognition which can cause either undue stress during the test or a certain level of comfort as mentioned before. So, if you can identify those tests which had drilling questions pulled, then I would use those for drilling purposes and use unseen tests for timed/scored PT purposes.

[admitmenowplzkthxbai]

Thanks for your input, lymenheimer! I'll definitely pay attention to the earlier/rare types of games.

I guess my concern was not so much taking "old"/early tests, but taking full-length PTs containing questions/games I've already seen before (with the caveat that I don't usually automatically remember what the answer was (that is, I still have to think through the stimuli, set up and do the games, etc.)). But if I'm understanding what you're all saying correctly, there is still some value in "going through the same [thinking] processes to get your result)." So thankfully it appears that I'm not completely wasting my time.

Yea I did skirt that topic. If I would have had your ear prior to you taking the course, I would have suggested to avoid the drilling that they offer since they split it up between PTs and, if your resources are limited, can cut down on your availability of full length tests. I don't know how they actually split it up (since I've never done a course), but if they kept it between 4 or 5 PTs, then it is easy enough to work around those for timed scoring. However, if they have a deep pool of drilling questions that span numerous tests, it may be a bit more difficult. I would not hold too much weight on a test that you have seen questions before, especially if you recognize the questions. I scored my highest on a PT that I had done before and was shy of that score on test day (when I had peak performance on my previous attempt). It is a bit harder to say when you don't recognize the problem, but even subconsciously there is some recognition which can cause either undue stress during the test or a certain level of comfort as mentioned before. So, if you can identify those tests which had drilling questions pulled, then I would use those for drilling purposes and use unseen tests for timed/scored PT purposes.

Thanks so much, lymenheimer . Yeah a lot of the drilling questions were actually from the more recent tests. So at the least I'll definitely be making sure to use the earlier tests as full-length practice tests. There were a couple PTs as well during the course, all recent ones, so I have been able to get a "feel" of the most recent tests as well. I'll just take the scores from tests with familiar questions with a grain of salt.