Had been taking old tests, took 77 and was surprised Forum

[GumpBrave]

I originally took the LSAT in February and was less than satisfied with my score. I had decided to take it a month before and crammed my studying in around a full time work schedule. In order to work on a rushed schedule, and hearing that repetition is key, I bought the two most recent preptest books and a couple of individual ones. Since I was so rushed, I flew through the preptests, sometimes just doing parts (thus rendering the test useless for actual test sitting practice).

I'm sitting in September. I was supposedly to sit in June but broke fingers in my writing hand early-mid May and withdrew. Some preparation occurred in that time frame, some self-study, more burning through the most recent, untaken tests I had.

So I had been taking tests from 2004-2005 (these were fresh) with a bit of retakes of newer tests sprinkled in. I had a pretty consistent band of 171-173 (with two outliers, a 175 that I felt I nailed and was supremely confident all thru, low score where I just didn't feel right) going in my run up. I then took practice test 77. It felt very challenging to me and I scored a 164 (well outside what I'd been doing consitenyly). I didn't perfectly utilize test-day strategy and fought section 3 of logic games longer than I shiould've/would've.

But something that struck me was that the LR prompts I'd been used to now seemed completely different. I psyched myself out on "represents entire conclusion" and how that would differ from what I'd been seeing "conclusion" or "main conclusion". This is normally a -4 section on a BAD day.

All of that to introduce a series of questions: Can someone give me an overview on how the test has shifted from the 40s preptests to now and how I should go about preparing for those changes? Also was this considered a hard/difficult test and if so what parts gave you difficulty?

Any advice for a 2nd time test taker would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

[Big Red]

IMO the tests get harder as you get into the 60s, but not by as much as your dropped there. Just a bad day, would recommend taking a day off then get back to work

[Barack O'Drama]

I originally took the LSAT in February and was less than satisfied with my score. I had decided to take it a month before and crammed my studying in around a full time work schedule. In order to work on a rushed schedule, and hearing that repetition is key, I bought the two most recent preptest books and a couple of individual ones. Since I was so rushed, I flew through the preptests, sometimes just doing parts (thus rendering the test useless for actual test sitting practice).

I'm sitting in September. I was supposedly to sit in June but broke fingers in my writing hand early-mid May and withdrew. Some preparation occurred in that time frame, some self-study, more burning through the most recent, untaken tests I had.

So I had been taking tests from 2004-2005 (these were fresh) with a bit of retakes of newer tests sprinkled in. I had a pretty consistent band of 171-173 (with two outliers, a 175 that I felt I nailed and was supremely confident all thru, low score where I just didn't feel right) going in my run up. I then took practice test 77. It felt very challenging to me and I scored a 164 (well outside what I'd been doing consitenyly). I didn't perfectly utilize test-day strategy and fought section 3 of logic games longer than I shiould've/would've.

But something that struck me was that the LR prompts I'd been used to now seemed completely different. I psyched myself out on "represents entire conclusion" and how that would differ from what I'd been seeing "conclusion" or "main conclusion". This is normally a -4 section on a BAD day.

All of that to introduce a series of questions: Can someone give me an overview on how the test has shifted from the 40s preptests to now and how I should go about preparing for those changes? Also was this considered a hard/difficult test and if so what parts gave you difficulty?

Any advice for a 2nd time test taker would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

The newer tests seem to have longer and more convoluted stimuli for logical reasoning. Also, the answer choices seem to contain more "trick answers" I think it was a lot easier to pre-phrase or predict answers back in the older tests.

Logic games seems to be a bit more formulaic. Though, many say that more unpredictable games from the older tests have been showing up.

Reading Comp is definitely harder, at least that is how many feel.

Overall, I don't think the test has gotten harder, but it is a bit different. Remember, the same skills are important whether or not you are taking PT1 or PT 78. You just have to use those skills a bit differently at times.

Also, take this all with a grain of salt, I haven't really done too many of the newer tests. Just some observations and things I've heard.

I think you probably just had an off day, though. Do a good blind review and see that PT as a test that has more to teach you rather than one you bombed.

[GumpBrave]

The newer tests seem to have longer and more convoluted stimuli for logical reasoning. Also, the answer choices seem to contain more "trick answers" I think it was a lot easier to pre-phrase or predict answers back in the older tests.

Logic games seems to be a bit more formulaic. Though, many say that more unpredictable games from the older tests have been showing up.

Reading Comp is definitely harder, at least that is how many feel.

Overall, I don't think the test has gotten harder, but it is a bit different. Remember, the same skills are important whether or not you are taking PT1 or PT 78. You just have to use those skills a bit differently at times.

Also, take this all with a grain of salt, I haven't really done too many of the newer tests. Just some observations and things I've heard.

I think you probably just had an off day, though. Do a good blind review and see that PT as a test that has more to teach you rather than one you bombed.[/quote]

The RC seemed easier than usual for me. Logic game 3 and 4 were pretty painful, I should have skipped 3 but got stubborn, managed to do 4 with one blank in about 5 or 6 minutes. That 3rd one (The 4 employees and four offices determined by their ranked list and a random drawing) just kicked my ass. I couldn't wrap my brain around it, I get it now, but I did an incredibly crappy job of setting it up the right way. It was one of the weirdest games I'd seen in a while.

For LR, I struggled more than usual but wasn't that bothered by stimulus length. It was the question stem length, unconventional wording and strange questions in general. And I lost about 5 points to trick answers that would have been perfect without a single word towards the end that changed it entirely.

Is this test famous for any quirks, I'm gonna analyze the hell out of it. But the real question is do I need to entirely change my study trajectory. September sitting: my current material available 78 unspoiled, a couple of retakes of i think 69 and 70 and maybe 4 in the late 40s.

[Barack O'Drama]

The newer tests seem to have longer and more convoluted stimuli for logical reasoning. Also, the answer choices seem to contain more "trick answers" I think it was a lot easier to pre-phrase or predict answers back in the older tests.

Logic games seems to be a bit more formulaic. Though, many say that more unpredictable games from the older tests have been showing up.

Reading Comp is definitely harder, at least that is how many feel.

Overall, I don't think the test has gotten harder, but it is a bit different. Remember, the same skills are important whether or not you are taking PT1 or PT 78. You just have to use those skills a bit differently at times.

Also, take this all with a grain of salt, I haven't really done too many of the newer tests. Just some observations and things I've heard.

I think you probably just had an off day, though. Do a good blind review and see that PT as a test that has more to teach you rather than one you bombed.

The RC seemed easier than usual for me. Logic game 3 and 4 were pretty painful, I should have skipped 3 but got stubborn, managed to do 4 with one blank in about 5 or 6 minutes. That 3rd one (The 4 employees and four offices determined by their ranked list and a random drawing) just kicked my ass. I couldn't wrap my brain around it, I get it now, but I did an incredibly crappy job of setting it up the right way. It was one of the weirdest games I'd seen in a while.

For LR, I struggled more than usual but wasn't that bothered by stimulus length. It was the question stem length, unconventional wording and strange questions in general. And I lost about 5 points to trick answers that would have been perfect without a single word towards the end that changed it entirely.

Is this test famous for any quirks, I'm gonna analyze the hell out of it. But the real question is do I need to entirely change my study trajectory. September sitting: my current material available 78 unspoiled, a couple of retakes of i think 69 and 70 and maybe 4 in the late 40s.[/quote]

Yeah man, I've taken 2 full-length tests June 07 and PT62, so those are my reference points. Definitely some trick questions and certainly some longer stimuli and stems.... Also, like I said, the language can be quite convoluted. Glad to hear the RC was easier for you!

Famous for any quirks? Ehh... Nothing I would say it is famous for, however, there are some patterns you'll start to see.

Overall, I think you will get acclimated with the newer test's challenges with time and more PTs.

[GumpBrave]

Cheers. Thanks for the wise words.

[RamTitan]

IMO the tests get harder as you get into the 60s, but not by as much as your dropped there. Just a bad day, would recommend taking a day off then get back to work

This; don't sweat it OP, you've got it.