« on: January 16, 2005, 11:30:34 PM »
1. There is no data to support this argument. He is merely making the claim, subjectively and without data, that someone with a 4.0 would NEVER score a 125 on the LSAT. Sure, it may be unlikely, but even so that does not disprove the model relayed by the numbers, which is that NSL will accept super-low LSAT scores as per its own index number target.
This does not disprove anything. It is the mere argument that it is unlikely for a 4.0 student to get a 125 on the LSAT. Even if that's true, it in no way mitigates the criticism of NSL's POTENTIAL to accept 125 LSAT scorers. If you still don't think that statistic is relevant, look at Cooley, which requires a 143 LSAT, EVEN IF the applicant is at a 4.0. See the difference?
And, while not common, people with close to 4.0's and LSAT's in the 120-130 range do apply to schools. Go look at the LSAC data for schools like Cooley and Thurgood Marshall. Some people get high GPAs at TTTs and then tank the LSAT.
Also, even assuming that the argument was correct that a 125 cannot fit with a 4.0, it is still irrelevant. Why? Because earlier in my original post I performed a calculation showing that a 3.0 and a 140 could be admitted- here there is very little disparity in GPA and LSAT. The point is the same, even if the MOST EXTREME example, while still mathematically accurate, may be unlikely.
2. This is irrelevant. Maybe a 125 is 20 questions instead of 5. SO WHAT? The point is that it is easy to score a 125, and hypothetically someone who does can get into NSL. It is of no import whatsoever if 20 questions are needed for a 125 versus 5.
Finally, this in no way disputes any of the calculations I performed, as the numbers (from NSL's) site would still permit someone with a 125 to get in. It doesn't matter in the least how many questions need to be answered correctly for this to happen.
You are not very good at interpreting the relevant implications of either math or verbal arguments.