I had LR-RC-LG-RC

I actually thought the LR was on the tougher side (not impossible, but I struggled a bit more than I'm used to), the first RC was so easy but the second I thought was tough. I'm really really hoping the first RC was the actual one and that the second was the experimental. The LG was fine, nothing crazy.

Good luck to everyone who us about to take it, and to everyone who has- congrats on finishing! :)

Also another reason why C is not correct is that it just says the employee was part of the dialogue, but doesn't specify if the dialogue was non-threatening. Also, just because employees participated in the dialogue, doesn't mean they individually contributed to the development of the ideas- that is a nuance that B captures. This question is ultimately about the degree to which employees contributed rather than whether employees were part of the conversation generally or not.

Also, the way I am justifying that A cannot be correct (given the wording of the stem) is that even if A were the correct answer, just because the data supporting the classical account of the sound change theory is inaccurate, does that mean we need to discard the whole sound change theory? AC A strengthens the idea that the sound change theory needs to go, but it's not a PSA level answer. If anything, I think we'd need another AC saying that "if an aspect of a theory is based on inaccurate data, then you should discard the whole theory" in order for AC A to be PSA- worthy.

AC D is the overall better AC because 1) the conditional logic is PSA worthy (/classical account --> /Sound theory) and allows the conclusion to follow logically from the premises once added into the overall answer and 2) it doesn't bring in new info but uses the existing premises to explain why the conclusion follows logically (whereas AC A does bring in a new idea)

This question is still annoying overall (given that it's PSA and the first AC was a plausible strengthen AC which is enticing + subtle word change in AC D is a bit sus) but I do think AC A is unequivocally wrong given that it just doesn't meet the standard of a correct PSA AC.

I'd be interested! I got a 167 in June and I'm aiming for 170+ in oct/nov

I agree with JMPlaw19- disclosing is highly unlikely to affect your app but if the Bar finds it later and you didn't disclose, that could call your character into question which could cause issues for when you apply for bar admission. Basically, odds of it hurting you now if you disclose are low, odds of it hurting you later when you didn't disclose and they find out are much bigger.

In past years, the rule of thumb has been the earlier you apply the better your chances, and the same could be true for this upcoming cycle (though I've heard theories they might hold out on offers early on to get a better sense of the applicant pool so schools can keep their new medians- I read this from another 7sager though so it is not confirmed, but an interesting theory). It also varies based on school (how their app process is run- for example YLS has a unique process) and who the other applicants are at any given point.

I think the best approach is to study as productively as you can and score the best you can in whichever administration you take. If you can get a score in January that is at/ above the median of whichever school you're trying to apply to, I don't see why you wouldn't have a decent chance (especially if everything else in your app is solid as well). However, it is important to note that though you may gain admission, scholarship money may be a bit more limited the later you apply.

Also, if you apply and don't get in, that does not affect your chances if you reapply. Multiple adcomms, from many top schools, have confirmed this. All they see on your app is a note saying you are a re-applicant, but they don't view that negatively and do not have the practice of looking at your previous app. Do the best you can in Jan- worst case you keep studying and get a top score to apply with early next year :)

I knocked B out when applying the negation test. Negated, B says: the capacities of astronauts are NOT typical of those of ordinary human beings.

The stim says that the space station is essential so they can test the "limits of human capacities to live in space" - aka astronauts, not just humans generally. The capacities that humans have to survive in space is on a spectrum- from not being able to survive at all, to being able to survive. We would think/ hope that the capacities of astronauts would not be typical of the average human- they need to be greater to withstand the challenges they will face outside earth.

So when applying the negation to the stim, it doesn't wreck the argument. Negated B just says astronauts' ability to survive is atypical of that of ordinary human beings.

I initially chose B and then chose A on BR, this was my reasoning. Hope this makes sense!

I scored 167 in June 2021 and it was within the 93 percentile then and still is now!

Congrats!!

Also interested!

Interested!

I'd also love to join! I scored in the high 160s on my first administration, and shooting for 170+ in oct/nov.

From the many info sessions for schools I've listened in on and from the advice of adcoms I've read about- I believe it is advised to write a "why X" statement only if you actually have a meaningful reason. Don't write one with generic reasons ("nice campus, small class sizes, etc") , but if there is something about the school that draws you to them specifically, then by all means write it. I can't speak to whether adcoms hate reading them, I'm sure they'd love to read about legitimate reasons why you want to attend/ what's special about their school specifically and how that connects to you personally/ professionally. The Dean of Admissions at Duke said it's not necessary to include the why X statement (he specifically noted they admit many people who don't write one), but that if you do include it, it should be meaningful and not perfunctory.

I have faced a lot of parental and external pressure when it comes to this exam, and I am so sorry you're experiencing that too. This test is tough and will be challenging in many ways. One big mistake I made was that I did too much too quickly (I was studying 6+ hours a day for 3 months) and I was so burnt out in the end that I took a few months off and postponed my exam multiple times. My parents were berating me every step of the way, which didn't help with the pressure and heightened my anxiety. But taking this test on my own timeline was the best thing I did. Taking it when I was ready and not when it was expected of me is a choice I do not regret at all. My diagnostic was 147 and with about a year of studying I got a 167 on my first take. I am now studying again for 170+ to take in Oct/Nov. Like nomomnom said, this test is all skill building and that looks different for each person. Parents and people who do not take the LSAT don't understand how difficult and long the process can be. That being said, study effectively to the best of your ability (# of hours does not necessarily indicate higher score- these ideas can take time to marinate so rest is important too) and you will see improvement for sure! Don't beat yourself up if you don't see a smooth upward trend in score, my analytics is a zig zag of scores that has slowly but steadily increased. Also, be flexible with the date. Take the exam when you're ready/ scoring close to or at the range you want. Also- if your mental health is triggered by this exam, incorporate meditation/ mindfulness into your routine and work on your relationship with the exam. Mindset plays a big role in your score, and developing a strong one is just as important as getting the mechanical skills down.

Right now, I recommend that you focus on the fundamentals and do everything untimed. Once you can get all the questions (or nearly all) correct in a section, move on to timed. Accuracy > speed is the key to strong fundamentals and consistent success in my opinion. Fool proofing LG is a great way to catapult your score in the beginning, supplementing that with consistent practice and review in LR and RC should get you into the 160s.

Everything will be ok! You've got this :)

I took June 2021 and I complete my writing about a week before my exam date. My sample was approved and posted on LSAC within 12 hours.

I recommend doing the practice run-through on LSAC, it's a simulation that shows you exactly how the official administration will look/feel like. Also- don't forget to show both sides of your scrap paper during room check and follow all other rules so your session won't be flagged.

If you do it after you take the exam, do it soon after just to be on the safe side. I think when people get their sessions approved is based on the volume of who takes it at any given time in the test taking window, which you can't be sure of, so get it done as soon as you can. I was nervous about the writing sample but it was very low stress, so don't worry too much about it. Good luck!

I'm also interested!

One strategy that got me to -3 is skipping! When you see a stim that you just cant wrap your head around in the moment- immediately skip and come back. I've found that taking that time and then giving it a second look gives me a fresh perspective on it and I either get the question correct or at the very least can make an educated guess.

Do you have a good strategy you can apply consistently? For example, I saw a score increase when I consistently used the LSAT Trainer "reading for reasoning structure" method for each passage I encountered combined with 7sage's method.

If you have a good strategy, how are you doing mentally? Prior to my June exam I went from -3 range back to -10 (my diagnostic range) and it was because my anxiety was getting in the way. Focus is a pillar for excelling in RC, how do you feel while doing the sections?

Regardless, I recommend doing untimed sections until you're getting -0, then easing back into timed sections. You can even do sections with extra time and whittle it down (for ex: 55m per section, to 45, to 40, to 35) to practice speed while maintaining accuracy.

You're definitely not alone in experiencing RC fluctuations, you've got this!

@dimakyure869 thanks so much for the insight!

interested!