And as for the AR section (games), I think that it doesn't measure one's analythical abilities at all, because people employ analythical reasoning all the time in their lives, and there is no need to draw a diagram to put your thoughts together and come up with a conclusion. I am sure that no lawyer ever uses that system, can you imagine? ...ok, let's see my client violated the rule A, which never goes with the rule CDEF.. If A then B, then he also must violated rule C, but if no C then no A
Well, I agree that listening is important in any kind of education, in law school as wel as in UG. But, it is very different when one has to listen carefully under the pressure of time and anxiety, and in the circumstances of a lecture environment.Lectures are usually intercative, and if one doesn't get something heshe can approach the prof. after the class,or do some extra readings. Also, there is no need to make premature conclusions regarding person's abilities to perform well in school based on the scores on the test exclusively (and especially on the listening section)...
2 zpops:My point was that as a lawyer you don't have to do it within 35 min. (except in special circumstances, but even for that you need to have some legal experience at hand). Law schools must help people to further develop their skills in reasoning, instead of expecting UG students to be perfect (since most schools expect 80% score and up) in their reasoning already.
Law schools certainly can and should expect their applicants to have the most developed skills..but how exactly do you measure them,
and "the best developed skills" as compared to whom?
LSAT mesures only logical and analythical (yes, and comprehensive too)abilities of the applicant, however, there are many other factors that play a very significant role in determining the future success of a person as a lawyer.
Following your logic, people who can do well on the LSAT and are not very bad in law school Will make a good lawyer. Altough it might be necessary condition, it is, however, insufficient.
As for your arguments, I should probably advise that you read my initial argument on this topic, otherwise you missing many key points which will allow you to construct a valid counteargument to my own.