170-175 LSAT is not easy. Seriously. I'll assume in the below that you get there, but understand that even assuming you are actually capable (not being mean, just realistic), it will still take a ton of work and effort to get there. Way more than you will ever expect. So, if you really think you can make it there, prepare to practice the LSAT BIG time - like part-time job (if not full time job) worth of preparation.
If someone is a pharmacist, they are probably already pretty brainy. A high LSAT score would not be unrealistic for them. If anything, medical school, pharmacy school, even nursing school are far more challenging than law studies. That's because they have to take a lot of math and science courses to succeed in their career. A high LSAT score would be a cakewalk for someone who is a pharmacist. I am not sure why some here are doubting that the OP could achieve a high score. It is totally realistic for him.
First off, just because someone is in the medical field, it does not make them "brainy." I have met several pharmacists and doctors alike whose intellect are questionable at best. Of course, the likelihood is much stronger that the person is highly intellectual if they received an extremely high GPA from an extremely prestigious institution. However, the OP has a 3.1. This is a solid GPA, but not necessarily "top of class." We don't know where OP went to school, but regardless, let us assume they went to Harvard and a 3.1 places them in the top percentile of their class. Great. It still doesn't mean that they are "brainy" - it just means they got into Harvard and did well in their classes. Yes, it means that it is more than likely the case they are highly "intellectual," but not necessarily so.
Second, even if the OP is "brainy," the LSAT is not a test of how "brainy" you are - at least not primarily so. Math/Science tests are primarily tests of information - how well you can recall facts about a given subject. You either know the names of the bones in the human body or you don't. You either know the effects of a given drug or you don't. Of course, there is some application of this knowledge, but usually the application is yet another means of showcasing THINGS you KNOW. With some exceptions (some mathematics courses), the application processes itself is not the primary thing being tested. For example, a Pharmacist may be expected to calculate dosage of a drug. They need to KNOW the formulas for the drug, KNOW what information is needed to plug into those formulas, KNOW how to find that information, etc. The fact that they compute may be expected, but not primary. In sum, these tests are tests of knowledge (noun).
The LSAT is not a test of "information" - it is a test of how efficient and productive you can 1) digest (verb) and understand (verb) new, convoluted information and 2) analyze/synthesize/problem solve (verb/verb/verb) with that information. The things being tested in the LSAT are not nouns (i.e. knowledge), but verbs (i.e. ability to DO). The LSAT, then, is a "skills" test. The LSAT does not test your knowledge, but rather how well you APPLY new knowledge. The LSAT is closer, then, to the ways abilities are tested of performers/artists/athletes. The major difference, of course, is that of the medium. The medium performers/athletes use to showcase their skills are physical in nature (running/playing an instrument/painting - all verbs). However, LSAT takers showcase their skills through cognitive and intellectual means. How well can they intake (verb), understand (verb), and synthesize (verb).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this means people with Pharmacy backgrounds cannot perform well on the LSAT. All I'm saying is that just because you are a Pharmasict, it does not necessarily mean you will do very well on the LSAT. Moreover, given that the primary - if not only - means of testing a Pharmasict has been exposed to has been knowledge based, doing well on the LSAT may in fact be more surprising than "realistic" as you suggested. This is actually shown to be the case. The top scorers on the LSAT tend to be people who have been tested via skills tests. Phylosphy, Economics, History.. and on the science side, Engeering/Physics (where the PRIMARY testing method is skills based).
I went on to say that if OP is capable of scoring a 175 (and as I showed above, this does not NECESSARILY correlate to being a person of high intellect), it still does not mean much. You might be capable of being a Mozart, of being Picasso, of being da Vinci. Just because you are capable of being does not mean you are. The difference between these amazing performers and most everyone else that is "capable" is that they practiced - a lot. Mozart did not just "study" the parts (noun) of music - he practiced (verb) applying (verb) it via performing (verb) and composing (verb) - hours and hours and hours. Therefore, assuming OP is capable, they will need to practice and practice in order to get to a 175. This practice is far more intensive than most anticipate. That is the primary point I was trying to make in my statement.
How hard is it to get to a 175? What exactly is, as you said, a "high" LSAT score? It certainly is subjective - but can it be defined? Certainly, average or below average would probably not be considered a "high" score to the reasonable person. Indeed, a "high" LSAT score would at least be above the average. Probably higher than JUST above average, but at least above average. The average statistical LSAT score is somewhere around 147-157 (plus/minus 5 from 152). So if a 158 (around the 75th percentile) is considered "high" - what do we call a 175? It is mega high!... 175 is not merely a "high" score. It is THE "high" score. Really, there is no great significant statistical difference between a 175 and a 180. We are now in the top 1% of all LSAT takers. The top fraction of a fraction of the top 1% of the total population. It will take work to get there. Lots of it.
So, no, it is not "unreleasitic" to expect anyone, even the OP (or particularly OP) to get a 175. Er.. excuse the double negative..... It IS unrealistic to expect a 175. Period. Again, this does not mean it is impossible, it is actually completely possible - it is just unlikely. Yet, even if all the facts situated the outcome to be "likely," it would still be extremely difficult.
You may think this overly blunt at best or overly mean at worst, but trust me, it is merely the former. This is blunt. It has to be. Because if someone actually is capable of getting a 175 thinks that just because they are capable, they will get it... they are doomed. Someone who is capable of a 175 needs to be pushed, needs to be challenged. They need to be hit over the head with the bluntness of this post, because if they aren't, then they probably won't get to that 175. They won't get to their fullest potential. It might hurt OP's ego (or any other reader's for that matter), but at least this post would help them get to where they are going.