Is it true that the LSAT has gotten easier since the year 2000? Seems like the 1990's LSAT asked much tougher questions.
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.
wrong. julie adding that your answer bull.julie would love hear you explain your conclusion that overall test not easier but "Certain parts have become trickier, and others more straight foreward. For example, the LG section is markedly easier than it once was and RC has become slightly trickier."this certainy be real hoot. and try be "straight foreward" about it.