4) A test like the LSAT will test, among other things, the speed at which you can read and confidence in your quick analyses of verbal or logical problems. For example, when you are poor and come from the hood and learn English as a second language (like I did), you are not raised to have confidence in academic endeavors. Often times societal pressures mold you into a "thug" or some other type of anti-intellectual. So, if you take the test at all, you are more likely to be very timid in working out the problems and the end result is that you get worked over by the test. This has nothing to do with intellectual capacity or ability to work through complex issues in a sound, logical manner.
The problem is that a "thug" shouldn't become a lawyer and if a person cannot comprehend English very well that person shouldn't be a lawyer either. Did you know that lawyers with an accent will probably never see the floor of a courtroom in a big trial? Your argument seems to claim that it is the job of law schools to turn "thugs" and or simply people who are not "ready" into lawyers. Of course this is not so and the LSAT is designed to separate those that are "ready" or suitable for law, from those that aren't. No one cares if a person is ultimately intelligent or not. The only thing that the admissions committee or clients care about is your ability to walk out of a courtroom with a favorable decision. In many cases this means you have to talk and act in a certain way.