Top Law Schools

I did a quick search on here and found conflicting answers. So what is the consensus on the PT's? Are the older more difficult or are the newer more difficult? Vary by section?

newer more difficult.

I honestly don't think there is a clear-cut answer, and I think that it is actually subjective. A lot of students think that the newer ones are harder. I am not that far into my studies, but I have noticed that I do much better on newer questions than old. I think it depends on the test-taker and the style of the old vs. newer exams.

IMO, there are some minor differences, but the differences are not significant enough to completely discount old tests, particularly in logic games.

If limited on time, I think you should focus your studies on the newer tests but don't ignore the old tests if you have the time. They are more than good enough to practice with. I think you should start learning the material with older tests and PT with the newer ones.

Older defintely easier for LR. My score was higher (-2 or 3) versus the newer (PT 60+, where I was --3/4 versus 75+ where I was -4/5).

As for LG, most early games are easier, except for weird ones early, early on. They get harder much recently (and quite similar to early, early ones).

If you're worried that you'll be wasting your time by drilling older PT's, I think you're probably worrying for nothing. Drilling old PT's is certainly useful for building the skills the LSAT tests. If you're concerned that older PT's aren't as representative of your ability to score similarly on a modern test, you might be right. Averaging a 170 on test 19-28 is probably less representative of your abilities than averaging 170 on tests 60-80, but still 19-28, etc. are still valuable for drilling purposes.

I think the best way to think of this, is that the newer tests simply have a higher percentage of harder questions, not that all questions on the newer tests are X% harder than earlier tests.

Platopus wrote:If you're worried that you'll be wasting your time by drilling older PT's, I think you're probably worrying for nothing. Drilling old PT's is certainly useful for building the skills the LSAT tests. If you're concerned that older PT's aren't as representative of your ability to score similarly on a modern test, you might be right. Averaging a 170 on test 19-28 is probably less representative of your abilities than averaging 170 on tests 60-80, but still 19-28, etc. are still valuable for drilling purposes.

I think the best way to think of this, is that the newer tests simply have a higher percentage of harder questions, not that all questions on the newer tests are X% harder than earlier tests.

Well, I don't really have that many issues with LR and RC on the newer ones when I slow it down and take my time. It's the LG that I am mainly drilling because I need to work on those the most. So I have been using the older PT's to drill LG

ZVBXRPL wrote:Older defintely easier for LR. My score was higher (-2 or 3) versus the newer (PT 60+, where I was --3/4 versus 75+ where I was -4/5).

As for LG, most early games are easier, except for weird ones early, early on. They get harder much recently (and quite similar to early, early ones).

Do you mean that the newest games are very similar to the very very early LSATs?

hinton2014 wrote:

ZVBXRPL wrote:Older defintely easier for LR. My score was higher (-2 or 3) versus the newer (PT 60+, where I was --3/4 versus 75+ where I was -4/5).

As for LG, most early games are easier, except for weird ones early, early on. They get harder much recently (and quite similar to early, early ones).

Do you mean that the newest games are very similar to the very very early LSATs?

Yes! Ccheck out Zephyr Airlines, plaid solid clothes games.

This is obviously open to interpretation depending on what about the test you find the most difficult. However, something I've noticed is that the older tests tend to be a little bit looser with their use of language. So on things like inference or strengthen or weaken questions, older tests seem to be a bit more interpretive, which, I would argue makes the new tests easier. Obviously none of the answers on any of the tests are subjective, but it just feels like LSAC is a little better at covering their tracks nowadays and avoiding even tiny equivocations...it's significantly harder to argue even with a word or two on the newer tests. That being said, the last couple of tests have all had some bizarre, rare game types that (like others have been saying) are more reminiscent of older tests and also on the harder side simply because they're less familiar. The logical thinking you use doesn't really change, but because they're different, people tend to think they're harder. And finally, the early tests did not have comparative reading, which could make it easier or harder for you depending on your thoughts on comparative reading. But all of this should be taken with a grain of salt because, in general, the differences between tests are minimal.