listen up, tadpoles: to answer this question beyond bloviating require first you have define "easier," and that not going be easy.
one could define relative ease as comparing how many right answers necesary for given scaled score, such as 160, now versus earlier. however, that beg question of whether 160 of today equal to 160 of yesteryear. it also not account for number of questions on test, which vary; this could be accounted for by using % correct rather than raw score, but that going take some rounding off and so there's an additional inaccuracy.
one (or even two) also could define relative ease of particular percentile as function of raw score (or % correct), which at least reflect variation between tests, but even that not reflect differences between populations. belief that today's test-takers better than those of 10 yerars ago not subject to any proof that can be considered quantitative--and julie not consider anything thales say be credible unless it on subjects of shoplifting or herpes treatment. and even new tests will vary among selves, as will old tests.
and anyway: what hell point? you people need stopping examining navel and study for friggin' test.
and that julie's serious post on lsat for this month.