what so hard about meaning words "difficult" or "order"?
julie saying all 24-26 questions in given lr section generally arranged in progressive order difficulty, question type (or "subtype," if prefer) aside. some types lr questions--e.g., strengthen--rare enough might have only one anyway, so "ordering" of all questions that type within section obviously moot issue.
some lr question types--e.g., inference--common enough expect have several in one section. these also would generally be in order difficulty as consequence of, if nothing else, general progessivity for entire section.
main point here: fewer people likely going answer question 19 right than question 4, or question 15 and question 2.
You are generally correct. But if you look to the statistics for LR sections (I got these from a private company, I don't know whether or not they're publicly available), you'll see that there is generally a very difficult question somewhere around the 7-10 range, and then often another around 14-19, and the last 4-5 will be the most difficult of the section. This is not speculation, but hard statistics.
and how many times julie say lr questions "generally" in order of progressive difficulty? christ, learn how read. julie 10 steps ahead of you, babe.
but at least you know how avoid speculating when "hard statistics" available, and actually have those statistics. (hey, lindbergh and hys hopeful, you friggin' idiots, you getting this?)
julie probably looking at same data to which you refer, and julie know where your "private company" got them. so should anyone else who hold forth on lsat "difficulty patterns."
You've got to realize that its hard to read critically when every other word is missing.