Ah, my mistake. This is the reason why spell-check is the paramour in my life.

You could've used the pm feature, man . I saw this dude saying 'purgative' instead of 'prerogative' and i almost 'shit' myself laughing. Moral of the story: stick to words you are familiar with. I only just learned this perspicacity word in a thread i had started.

Lol

Your ceiling is showing.

Your ceiling is a 162.

You are, in effect, reiterating my earlier post. IMO, the LSAT is little more than a reading test. There are some other finite, learnable skills that one must acquire and incorporate into the process, but it is still ultimately a reading test. Whether or not reading ability can be improved upon is up to each individual. The overall verbal skills one has acquired throughout 16-18 years of prior schooling (on average) can determine one's "starting point". It is the foundation for one's success. One can strategically alter this foundation, but it takes time, and a lot of work...the breaking of bad habits.

How cheap of you...typo bonehead! FIXED in BOLD!

Also...OP re-wrote his post, first and foremost including a comma before "because". It's still a poorly written question. OP should have written the cause before the effect, precisely because he was constructing a question. Good writers are like good point-guards: they write sentences that good readers can understand without re-reading. They properly punctuate sentences, properly place modifiers, use active voice whenever possible, and place causes before effects.

To prove my point, here is a much better (albeit still imperfect) construction of OP's original post.

Given factors such as lapses in focus, inability to process/handle multiple pieces of information at one time, inability to make correct inferences, etc., do you believe that there are some people who can never really achieve a certain score - even with an unlimited amount of study time?

OP probably reads the way he writes, which means he likely misreads much of the properly constructed language he encounters on the test. That causes slowdowns. The key to mastering the LSAT is to improve your verbal skills overall. As I said earlier, you must break bad habits.

We may agree in part, but we don't come to the same conclusion. I don't agree that it is 'little more than a reading test'. That is like saying that music is nothing more than simply playing all the notes in the correct sequence. It ignores the surrounding skills, the performance, and the artistry. Similarly, your conclusion ignores the study habits, the self-discipline, the mental focus, and the stamina.

Just playin, bro

PDaddy, I have no clue what you're rambling on about. Lol my head is spinning right now.

Also, just to clarify a response to OP's initial question: I think it depends on your definition of 'everyone'. If 'everyone' means literally 'everyone', than, yes, not everyone can score 170 on this test in a reasonable manner. There are plenty of people who are dyslexic, who dropped out of high school, who never read well, who are psychotic, or mentally retarded (I mean diagnosed, not just 'stupid people) who cannot take this test effectively.

However, if 'everyone' means 'everyone who takes the LSAT', then we have a smaller pool. Assuming that they all completed high school, and all have a college degree, they must have some degree of reading comprehension. This pool will still include people diagnosed with ADHD, depression, and so on. Even so, those people with those disorders can and regularly do get great scores on the LSAT, either due to medication or to sheer perseverance. This leaves us with a bit of a problem, though: what about the others who cannot perform well on the LSAT? What happened?

I don't think anything happened. I think these people have simply hit a plateau, or have let their reading skills atrophy. Either way, they have the skills they need. It might take some time to figure out the next step, but they are perfectly capable of taking it within a reasonable time period.

To take the LSAT, you must have passed high school, have completed (or are completing) a 4-year degree, and must have had approximately 16-18 years of schooling in your life. That is a lot of reading. I just don't find it plausible that someone who has completed that much schooling, and has gotten a respectable GPA, lacks so much in reading comprehension that he or she cannot take that test.

Being good at the LSAT also means being able to focus on what's important and what's not. Something to think about...

Well, I've never met someone who didn't have a ceiling.

Have you met someone who reached their ceiling? If yes, how do you know he/she reached it?

That's the problem i have with accepting this theory as well. If the people in question raise their scores by 1 point, is that the new ceiling?

Dumb question. People who got 180's.

This is a pointless exception. It contributes nothing to the discussion.

Inasmuch as the discussion is pointless itself since it is impossible to answer; and my comment was way to absurd to deserve any conversation; I'd say the score is Troll 1, You all 0.

Wow you're awesome. And, just to troll back, 180 does not necessarily mean -0.

You tried. You failed. You backtracked. Stand by your bullshit and admit that you got your ass kicked in a discussion.

Working off of the assumption that this discussion is pointless if it cant definitively answer the question in its title. Which is false.

This thread sucks, it turned from people patting themselves/each other on the back for going to non-prestigious undergrads to pure nonsense.

^^^^^^^