... good for you.
Anyway, you could prepare for the LSAT in a number of ways, just figure out what best suits you.
I have a good one for you, sonofapickle, if you're so intelligent and above all of this, then why the hell do you spend so much time on here arguing pointlessly? Oh, and to act like you:
1.) It is continually, not continuously.
2.) You contradict yourself all the time.
3.) You give opinions no one wants.
4.) You obviously have trouble making friends (bad for a lawyer).
5.) Perhaps I was wrong about my interpretation of your character- but as I see it, the only other possibility is that you're a sociopath.
6.) I am not touching your last post with a ten foot pole, but I will say that everyone thinks you're an ass and if this is your strategy for successfully practicing law, you better get a new one because unbeknowst to you, the legal field (like many other fields) is based on establishing good relationships and being "likeable." You are not. You should know (if you're as intelligent as you claim) that truth is more often than not a social construct and no matter how intelligent you believe that you are, if you're constantly at odds with 99.99999999% of the population, you're essentially an idiot. If you were intelligent enough, you might be able to convince them of your strange worldview, but apparently you cannot.
I wasnoi't gng to respond, but after working 15 hours in a row, I suppose I am feeling a bit punchy. Don't expect me to respond to your next series of ramblings (BTW I think you would enjoy the book The Secret History). I don't care. As my dad would say, I should be studying for the exam instead.
I do not care if you read this or not, but your inability to compare your arguments to life is very limited and rather more inclined to tunnel vision than a broader perspective. You have shown this twice.
1) Continually and continuously are both used under different circumstances within grammar. There was nothing wrong with my diction at the time.
2) That I did contradict myself, but not centered around my argument nor point. It was a non-argumentative contradiction.
3) The OP asked for opinions, so my opinion was well within the guidelines of this topic. Again, you encompass tunnel vision when trying to state your points and fail to see the obvious.
4) Assumption; unfounded. Petitio Principii; in other words, begging the question. Fallacy of presumption. You won't be a good lawyer making unfounded and erroneous accusations.
5) You have no idea what a sociopath is; a sociopath is or was often in trouble with the law at an early age in life, a sociopath often acts on impulse (I do not), a sociopath entails antisocial personality characteristics, etc... Those traits do not fit my character as I do not exhibit anything a sociopath exhibits other than arrogance which everyone has to some degree. Again, you commit various fallacies within your posts. Try to limit them.
6) Because I am not likable on this site does not mean I will also be unlikable in the field of law outside of the internet. You are obviously making a generalization based on your own assumption which is another fallacy. Try again.
7) "If you were intelligent enough, you might convince them of your world view." Quite the contrary. People who believed in flat Earth still existed in the 80s with the flat Earth Society. People who still believe blacks are genetically inferior to Caucasians, still hold onto their views despite biological facts. People who still believe in extraterrestrial life forms being superior to humans are still prevalent despite various physics and cosmological facts pointing to the contrary. People still believe homosexuals are committing a grave sin are still prevalent. People who believe abortions are acts of murder are still prevalent. The point of all this? You obviously have a lot of learning to do before coming at me with weak statements attempting to attack my character.
I won't say much aside from what you have posted. You have shown, on two occasions, instances of tunnel vision, you are either too angry thus clouded, or have a limited reasoning capacity. Either way, construct better arguments, limit the fallacies, and be more intuitive. I love arguing so bring your A game or don't respond.