I'll not answer your other comments (because my previous comment to which you replied seems to have been lost to futility), but would like to point out that ALL racists are indeed stupid. I define intelligence, of course, as being able (among many other things) to silence emotional or cultural (non-logical) influence to see good arguments and facts shine through. This would include being hit (as if by a train) by the fact (call it an argument, if you need persuasion) that racism is wrong.
Funny, making blanket generalizations (all [insert group of people here] are stupid), as well as defining intelligence often garners one the title of racist.
anyone have information about which law schools are the most jewish?
Are all blanket generalizations wrong? I think some uses of generalizations are wrong, like racism. Because they extend over inherently non-generalizable entities (unique humans). But some generalizations are absolutely necessary. Like, e.g., all rape is wrong. All child abusers are wrong. All triangles are shapes. QED. Would you even listen to someone who would deny these generalizations? Logic is a tricky thing. Might look into the non-LSAT stuff for more help.
And, by the way, how does defining intelligence garner one the title of racist? Hm. You commit yourself to saying that IQ-test designers are your average Klan member. How does that even make sense?!
By the way, logical thinking is best taught in philosophy departments. Not LSAT prep courses.