Straw_Mandible wrote:rpupkin wrote:
Exactly. When I wrote "test taking tricks," I meant understanding "the logic of the test" through months or years of repetitive exercises. Will a test taker improve their overall logical reasoning skills in the course of those repetitive exercises? Probably. But much of those gains will, as you put it, be in the realm of the "logic of the test," and won't generally apply to all logical reasoning in all contexts.
Fine, but why are you assuming that someone who is naturally good at the LSAT is also naturally good at reasoning "in all contexts"? The LSAT tests exactly what it tests, and nothing more. Maybe people who do well on the LSAT without prep simply have skills that align with success on the LSAT, but don't help them in any other contexts. In that case, the natural 170 and the learned 170 are equally suited to succeed in law school. But you can't argue that the skills tested by the LSAT are irrelevant to law school performance, and then proceed to argue that an LSAT natural is in a better position to succeed in law school than someone with learned LSAT ability.
Maybe an analogy will help. Think about the qualities that make up athletic ability--strength, quickness, stamina, etc. I decide I want to test these qualities through performance at a particular sport. I choose tennis. I've got two applicants, neither of whom has played tennis before. Applicant A gets really good really quick. Within a week, he's getting hard first serves in. He's got great instincts at the net. He moves well around the court and is able to return well at the baseline.
Applicant B, by contrast, is horrible at first. He literally swings and misses at the ball. He has a hard time chasing down balls. And when he does make contact, he tends to hit the ball too hard (hitting it out long) or too soft (into the net). He also has a real poor sense for where he is on the court at any given time. He's still bad at these things after a couple of weeks of practice. After a full year of daily practice, Applicant B has improved his technique to the point that he is finally as good as Applicant A was after one week.
Now, with that background about Applicant A and Applicant B, let's say you want to field a basketball team and have to pick A or B. Neither has played basketball before, but you know about what happened with tennis. Whom do you pick? I think the answer is obviously Applicant A, who seems to have superior natural athletic ability. Yes, it's theoretically possible that Applicant A's superior natural athletic ability is limited to the specific context of tennis, but that seems unlikely. Applicant A likely has superior coordination, speed, and reflexes. Applicant A is much more likely to be a decent basketball player after a relatively short period of time.
