Jeffort, your point is well taken. But I have to say that whether or not the LSAT is 'supposed' to test innate analytical reasoning skills is in some ways unimportant to the question I was really trying to pose. Perhaps it would be better phrased as a couple of seperate questions, as such: Does mastery of the LSAT prove mastery of analytic reasoning? Isn't it possible that those people who study hard for, and improve on, the LSAT, rather than learning to be "better" analytic reasoners, instead only memorize certain symbolic forms? And if this is the case, then later on in thier careers, when they're face with new symbolic forms, will it take them another year to master these forms? I guess my issue with your response is this: You seem to make the assumption that those people who have gained 'LSAT logical reasoning question skill' have learned 'logical reasoning skill' and I wonder if these are the same thing. I'm not saying they are not, I'm just not convinced that they are.