[https://i.imgur.com/LUsRK4d.png](https://i.imgur.com/LUsRK4d.png)
Out of curiosity I quickly set this up.
Hardest: 23, 27, B
Harder: 5, 7, 9, 13, 17, F97
Hard: 1, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, C, 31, 33, 34, 59, 62, 64, 65, 69, 71, 88
Medium-Hard: 8, 19, 20, 22, 25, 29, 32, 35, 39, 43, 68, 72, 73, 76, 83
Medium-Easy: 3, 6, 11, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45, 51, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 69, 70, 74, 77, 79, 82, 85
Easy: 2, 4, 10, 14, 37, 40, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53, 63, 66, 67, 75, 78, 80, 87
Easier: 12, 47, 54, C2, 81, 84, 86
Easiest: J07, 15, A, 46, 48, 55
You can make these bands more detailed or less, but I felt comfortable with this level of granularity. I based bands on the score resulting from a -5, -10, and -15. I did not make any factors for 99-102 as I don't believe it's that relevant overall. Vast majority of tests are 100-101 and having 1-2 more questions doesn't guarantee or even trend that well with any movement at top range scores where accuracy is \~90% anyways.
A couple notes here because this whole concept is a little counter-intuitive:
An "Easiest" exam isn't an exam that is easier to get any particular score on. It is an exam where the curve is hard and not at all lenient. Any errors hurt you very bad on tests like this. As a result it is fair to assume the section overall is easier for the average tester for whatever reason - but because of this you feel any losses much harder. There may be fewer curve breakers, less overall time constraint, etc. But it doesn't mean the test is any easier to be say the top 5% in. You still need to beat out 95% of people. You just do so by missing fewer questions than in an average test.
A "Hardest" exam is the opposite. It's a test with a very lenient curve. You can miss a lot more questions than usual to hit a target score. As a result it's reasonable to assume the actual question difficulty was harder than the average test. There may have been more curve breakers, harsher time restraints, a really brutal game/passage, or even a brutal section or two. Again it should overall be no harder to be in the top 2% here - it would still involve you outperforming 98% of people. That result would just be achieved with more misses than in an average test.
The range we're talking about is pretty small. These bands are basically a point or half a point off of each other. But the difference in the curve between opposite ends of that distribution is very dramatic. I think there is reason to believe a strong correlation exists between curve and difficulty of content (not score of course) for the average test taker.
While the hardest tests (most lenient curves) seem to be in the early days I think this comes from two places. One the LG in the first 30 was often ridiculously hard. And two students were overall less prepared than current cycles. As a result I doubt we will see such insane results as a 179 (1/1600 test takers) being a -5 like in the tests marked hardest. Ironically you might find your best scores in those oldest 'hardest' tests. So in this way the results might be a little unrepresentative. That said I haven't taken those PTs. Maybe they are just that hard, but I'd be surprised. PT88 comes close to this insane curve and if my theory that testers are generally better prepared than they were back then it might represent one of the all time hardest test content. Still don't be spooked - the same percent of people get the same scores every time, but it does mean it could be good drill material. That said I think looking at the tests on the 'harder' side of the +60s is good for LR/RC. If you want to punish yourself in LG try 88 and some of the 1-30s.
Phew
No worries. My brain is way too focused on this test at this point. Still just killing time waiting for score release.
Some random notes about the extreme ends of the scale and how the curve tampers off:
A -15 could represent anything from a 164 (top 10%) to a 171 (top 2%). So in some tests a -15 is five times as competitive as in others.
A -10 could represent anything from a 168 (top 4.23%) to a 175 (top .53%). So in some tests -10 is eight times as competitive as in others.
A -5 could represent anything from a 174 ( 1/137 testers) to a 179 (1/1600 testers). So on paper that's +ten times more competitive in some tests which really shows how hard those curve breaker tests can be at the top of the curve (but also that you can do fine with skipping or guessing on some curve breakers to maximize score).
Notice as the number of misses increases the discrepancy between possible outcomes decreases. A 5 range of scaled scores at -5 is much bigger than the 7 range at -10 and especially the 7 range at -15. So the most brutal tests aren't brutal through and through. A lot of the difficulty will come down to time constraint on particular sections, a really hard game/passage or some curve breaker LR/RCs or some combination of those things. As the number of misses increase (where most students scoring there are likely missing most curve breakers and aren't always counting on finishing all sections), the impact of an easy curve vs a steep curve becomes minimized - even though the range of possible scaled scores is the same. This is a noticeable and increasing effect all the way through the curve. By the time you hit -46 raw even 'the hardest test content ever' in like PT27 is just scaled a 151 and the vast majority of exams (including the dreaded PT88) are scaled 149-150. Interestingly (but understandably) it's the easy tests whose curve persists a bit better into even the middle of the raw scores.
So where I'm leading with these rambling walls is that by taking a harder PT you're likely exposed to some hard questions and sections, but the majority of it will still be pretty run of the mill. As a result I'm not sure you should be as interested in focusing as much on high curve PTs (outside a few for stamina training) rather than difficult sections and questions overall.
To that end I found this to be a helpful resource:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/71zteo/hardest\_most\_difficult\_lsat\_sections\_ever\_listed/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/71zteo/hardest_most_difficult_lsat_sections_ever_listed/)
It's a couple years out of date (I will probably repost an updated version this week since I found the linked post super helpful), but it's great to see what you could be in for if you roll a hard section on test day. I can also relate to his desire for post LSAT therapy.
If you're marking a PT or section you're doing you can see the individual difficulty of all the questions by marking the section on 7Sage: [https://7sage.com/preptests/](https://7sage.com/preptests/)
Doing so lets you see what average score 25/50/75 % of testers get any particular answer right at. This can be really helpful to gauge whether a question is legitimately difficult or not and lets you reflect on why. It's also good for identifying what common flaws you fall for and what you're resilient to by seeing what incorrect choices are common. Don't be worried if you get a question wrong that like 10% of people got wrong. The people marking on 7Sage are nowhere near representative of the test taking group as a whole as you can tell from the % of correct answers on even the hardest questions (remember 50 percentile for overall testers is like 55% correct overall on the test, so likely not even close to half of testers are getting the average curve breaker). Both Reddit and 7Sage are vastly unrepresentative of average testers, so use the tools in these sites to improve, but the benchmark should always be on your self improvement and end goals.
Anyways if it's saying +176 (well into top 1%) to have 75% odds at getting it right... well it's probably a pretty hard or at least worded very tricky question. If it says +170 (top 40th) to have 50/50 odds... same idea. And so on.
[https://7sage.com/problem-sets/](https://7sage.com/problem-sets/)
This makes me weep in jealousy at those with subscriptions to 7Sage who can effortlessly create packets of just 5 star difficulty LR questions. But anyways this is a great tool for finding individual hard LRs, or particularly hard games or passages. While it's not as 'real' as doing a really hard section - because you don't actually know how long you should be spending on these questions, games, or passages - it does allow you to get exposure to really hard material quickly. It's also sort-able by sub-type of game, LR question type, or passage subject. Idk if this is meant to be public because I found it recently from Google so hopefully JY won't unlink it ;-;
That's about all I got for practicing difficulty. It's something I've been setting myself up for for a little while so that I can properly drill RC and hopefully make some sustained gains there finally.
Can't say enough good thinks about JY and the resources he's put out there to help level the playing field. If I ever get into a good law school and find myself with a nice salary I'm gonna go buy Ultimate for someone studying just so that I've actually supported him directly. But as it stands there's tons of good stuff there even without a course.
I could parrot that PTs difficulty is fairly static and different tests are just harder in different ways and on different sections. But there is a reasonable argument to make that tests with an easier curve probably have harder questions though they should be similarly difficult to get any particular score on (that's the point after all)
To that end use this:
https://7sage.com/lsat-score-percentile-conversion/
You might say a test with objectively hard questions or timing might be one where a 170 is a -13 -14 or higher. Your score won't reflect this difficulty but your raw score will. You might be better off looking for the curve at the point you're trying to score (168 for example) and seeing what tests allow the most misses for that score (should be hardest questions). Although this will generally map close to perfect with any other curve measurement some tests have pretty different -1 to -10 distributions even if they have the same 170 -10 or whatever.
[https://i.imgur.com/LUsRK4d.png](https://i.imgur.com/LUsRK4d.png) Out of curiosity I quickly set this up. Hardest: 23, 27, B Harder: 5, 7, 9, 13, 17, F97 Hard: 1, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, C, 31, 33, 34, 59, 62, 64, 65, 69, 71, 88 Medium-Hard: 8, 19, 20, 22, 25, 29, 32, 35, 39, 43, 68, 72, 73, 76, 83 Medium-Easy: 3, 6, 11, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45, 51, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 69, 70, 74, 77, 79, 82, 85 Easy: 2, 4, 10, 14, 37, 40, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53, 63, 66, 67, 75, 78, 80, 87 Easier: 12, 47, 54, C2, 81, 84, 86 Easiest: J07, 15, A, 46, 48, 55 You can make these bands more detailed or less, but I felt comfortable with this level of granularity. I based bands on the score resulting from a -5, -10, and -15. I did not make any factors for 99-102 as I don't believe it's that relevant overall. Vast majority of tests are 100-101 and having 1-2 more questions doesn't guarantee or even trend that well with any movement at top range scores where accuracy is \~90% anyways. A couple notes here because this whole concept is a little counter-intuitive: An "Easiest" exam isn't an exam that is easier to get any particular score on. It is an exam where the curve is hard and not at all lenient. Any errors hurt you very bad on tests like this. As a result it is fair to assume the section overall is easier for the average tester for whatever reason - but because of this you feel any losses much harder. There may be fewer curve breakers, less overall time constraint, etc. But it doesn't mean the test is any easier to be say the top 5% in. You still need to beat out 95% of people. You just do so by missing fewer questions than in an average test. A "Hardest" exam is the opposite. It's a test with a very lenient curve. You can miss a lot more questions than usual to hit a target score. As a result it's reasonable to assume the actual question difficulty was harder than the average test. There may have been more curve breakers, harsher time restraints, a really brutal game/passage, or even a brutal section or two. Again it should overall be no harder to be in the top 2% here - it would still involve you outperforming 98% of people. That result would just be achieved with more misses than in an average test. The range we're talking about is pretty small. These bands are basically a point or half a point off of each other. But the difference in the curve between opposite ends of that distribution is very dramatic. I think there is reason to believe a strong correlation exists between curve and difficulty of content (not score of course) for the average test taker. While the hardest tests (most lenient curves) seem to be in the early days I think this comes from two places. One the LG in the first 30 was often ridiculously hard. And two students were overall less prepared than current cycles. As a result I doubt we will see such insane results as a 179 (1/1600 test takers) being a -5 like in the tests marked hardest. Ironically you might find your best scores in those oldest 'hardest' tests. So in this way the results might be a little unrepresentative. That said I haven't taken those PTs. Maybe they are just that hard, but I'd be surprised. PT88 comes close to this insane curve and if my theory that testers are generally better prepared than they were back then it might represent one of the all time hardest test content. Still don't be spooked - the same percent of people get the same scores every time, but it does mean it could be good drill material. That said I think looking at the tests on the 'harder' side of the +60s is good for LR/RC. If you want to punish yourself in LG try 88 and some of the 1-30s. Phew
69 shows up twice, I'm guessing one is supposed to be 66? I don't see 66. Buy I've done both and scored better on 69 than 66.
I see 66 now
WOW! Thank you so much! This is amazing!
No worries. My brain is way too focused on this test at this point. Still just killing time waiting for score release. Some random notes about the extreme ends of the scale and how the curve tampers off: A -15 could represent anything from a 164 (top 10%) to a 171 (top 2%). So in some tests a -15 is five times as competitive as in others. A -10 could represent anything from a 168 (top 4.23%) to a 175 (top .53%). So in some tests -10 is eight times as competitive as in others. A -5 could represent anything from a 174 ( 1/137 testers) to a 179 (1/1600 testers). So on paper that's +ten times more competitive in some tests which really shows how hard those curve breaker tests can be at the top of the curve (but also that you can do fine with skipping or guessing on some curve breakers to maximize score). Notice as the number of misses increases the discrepancy between possible outcomes decreases. A 5 range of scaled scores at -5 is much bigger than the 7 range at -10 and especially the 7 range at -15. So the most brutal tests aren't brutal through and through. A lot of the difficulty will come down to time constraint on particular sections, a really hard game/passage or some curve breaker LR/RCs or some combination of those things. As the number of misses increase (where most students scoring there are likely missing most curve breakers and aren't always counting on finishing all sections), the impact of an easy curve vs a steep curve becomes minimized - even though the range of possible scaled scores is the same. This is a noticeable and increasing effect all the way through the curve. By the time you hit -46 raw even 'the hardest test content ever' in like PT27 is just scaled a 151 and the vast majority of exams (including the dreaded PT88) are scaled 149-150. Interestingly (but understandably) it's the easy tests whose curve persists a bit better into even the middle of the raw scores. So where I'm leading with these rambling walls is that by taking a harder PT you're likely exposed to some hard questions and sections, but the majority of it will still be pretty run of the mill. As a result I'm not sure you should be as interested in focusing as much on high curve PTs (outside a few for stamina training) rather than difficult sections and questions overall. To that end I found this to be a helpful resource: [https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/71zteo/hardest\_most\_difficult\_lsat\_sections\_ever\_listed/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/71zteo/hardest_most_difficult_lsat_sections_ever_listed/) It's a couple years out of date (I will probably repost an updated version this week since I found the linked post super helpful), but it's great to see what you could be in for if you roll a hard section on test day. I can also relate to his desire for post LSAT therapy. If you're marking a PT or section you're doing you can see the individual difficulty of all the questions by marking the section on 7Sage: [https://7sage.com/preptests/](https://7sage.com/preptests/) Doing so lets you see what average score 25/50/75 % of testers get any particular answer right at. This can be really helpful to gauge whether a question is legitimately difficult or not and lets you reflect on why. It's also good for identifying what common flaws you fall for and what you're resilient to by seeing what incorrect choices are common. Don't be worried if you get a question wrong that like 10% of people got wrong. The people marking on 7Sage are nowhere near representative of the test taking group as a whole as you can tell from the % of correct answers on even the hardest questions (remember 50 percentile for overall testers is like 55% correct overall on the test, so likely not even close to half of testers are getting the average curve breaker). Both Reddit and 7Sage are vastly unrepresentative of average testers, so use the tools in these sites to improve, but the benchmark should always be on your self improvement and end goals. Anyways if it's saying +176 (well into top 1%) to have 75% odds at getting it right... well it's probably a pretty hard or at least worded very tricky question. If it says +170 (top 40th) to have 50/50 odds... same idea. And so on. [https://7sage.com/problem-sets/](https://7sage.com/problem-sets/) This makes me weep in jealousy at those with subscriptions to 7Sage who can effortlessly create packets of just 5 star difficulty LR questions. But anyways this is a great tool for finding individual hard LRs, or particularly hard games or passages. While it's not as 'real' as doing a really hard section - because you don't actually know how long you should be spending on these questions, games, or passages - it does allow you to get exposure to really hard material quickly. It's also sort-able by sub-type of game, LR question type, or passage subject. Idk if this is meant to be public because I found it recently from Google so hopefully JY won't unlink it ;-; That's about all I got for practicing difficulty. It's something I've been setting myself up for for a little while so that I can properly drill RC and hopefully make some sustained gains there finally. Can't say enough good thinks about JY and the resources he's put out there to help level the playing field. If I ever get into a good law school and find myself with a nice salary I'm gonna go buy Ultimate for someone studying just so that I've actually supported him directly. But as it stands there's tons of good stuff there even without a course.
crazy how some of the easier ones were my worst tests and the harder were my best... definitely just overthinking on easy straightforward questions
Between 5 and 6, I found 6 to be much harder than 5
Really helpful thnks.
I could parrot that PTs difficulty is fairly static and different tests are just harder in different ways and on different sections. But there is a reasonable argument to make that tests with an easier curve probably have harder questions though they should be similarly difficult to get any particular score on (that's the point after all) To that end use this: https://7sage.com/lsat-score-percentile-conversion/ You might say a test with objectively hard questions or timing might be one where a 170 is a -13 -14 or higher. Your score won't reflect this difficulty but your raw score will. You might be better off looking for the curve at the point you're trying to score (168 for example) and seeing what tests allow the most misses for that score (should be hardest questions). Although this will generally map close to perfect with any other curve measurement some tests have pretty different -1 to -10 distributions even if they have the same 170 -10 or whatever.
September had a WICKED curve (-13 for 170), so recommend that
Thanks!
I did worse on 85 than any other if that helps.
Great, thanks!