Top Law Schools

Does anyone see besides me pick up on the subtle humor that the LSAT throws at you? For example, this question from PT 34-2-12 about "synthesiacs"…the correct answer says that "synthesiacs demonstrate a…systematic impairment in their ability to use words". Basically the LSAC is saying that the explanation for this phenomenon is that this subset of people are stupid. I find myself chuckling at their subtle humor. And I quietly wonder to myself whether or not I'll burst out laughing on test day as I've done several times during my prep.

Lulz.

You'll be fine.

Comedy

Gold

[quote="HarvardHopeful93"]Does anyone see besides me pick up on the subtle humor that the LSAT throws at you? For example, this question from PT 34-2-12 about "synthesiacs"…the correct answer says that "synthesiacs demonstrate a…systematic impairment in their ability to use words". Basically the LSAC is saying that the explanation for this phenomenon is that this subset of people are stupid. I find myself chuckling at their subtle humor. And I quietly wonder to myself whether or not I'll burst out laughing on test day as I've done several times during my prep.[/quot.

People who can't use words are stupid? Wow, you're pretty insensitive.

My favorite was when they were bashing the astrologists for thinking they qualified as science. You can tell the test writers have no patience for new age hippy crap.

I generally agree; at least for like the 90s tests, the writers certainly had a good sense of humor. Won't happen on test day though.

Rigo wrote:Lulz.

Is Rigo back to civilization or did you post this via smoke signal from a mountaintop or something?

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:Does anyone see besides me pick up on the subtle humor that the LSAT throws at you? For example, this question from PT 34-2-12 about "synthesiacs"…the correct answer says that "synthesiacs demonstrate a…systematic impairment in their ability to use words". Basically the LSAC is saying that the explanation for this phenomenon is that this subset of people are stupid. I find myself chuckling at their subtle humor. And I quietly wonder to myself whether or not I'll burst out laughing on test day as I've done several times during my prep.

It's "synesthesiac," not synthesiac. I think you might be misidentifying the subset of people who is stupid. (Hint: it's you.)

Wiki tells me that Nikola Tesla had synesthesia. So did Richard Feynman, Vladimir Nabokov, Wassily Kandinsky, and Duke Ellington. All complete morons, I'm sure.

Deaf people often have trouble using words. Are all deaf people stupid too, now that we're defining stupid as "trouble using words"?

How about dyslexic people? (Alexander Graham Bell, Richard Branson, Lewis Carroll, Pete Conrad, Anderson Cooper, Leonardo da Vinci, Steven Spielberg, Charles Schwab).

rinkrat19 wrote:

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:Does anyone see besides me pick up on the subtle humor that the LSAT throws at you? For example, this question from PT 34-2-12 about "synthesiacs"…the correct answer says that "synthesiacs demonstrate a…systematic impairment in their ability to use words". Basically the LSAC is saying that the explanation for this phenomenon is that this subset of people are stupid. I find myself chuckling at their subtle humor. And I quietly wonder to myself whether or not I'll burst out laughing on test day as I've done several times during my prep.

It's "synesthesiac," not synthesiac. I think you might be misidentifying the subset of people who is stupid. (Hint: it's you.)

Wiki tells me that Nikola Tesla had synesthesia. So did Richard Feynman, Vladimir Nabokov, Wassily Kandinsky, and Duke Ellington. All complete morons, I'm sure.

Deaf people often have trouble using words. Are all deaf people stupid too, now that we're defining stupid as "trouble using words"?

How about dyslexic people? (Alexander Graham Bell, Richard Branson, Lewis Carroll, Pete Conrad, Anderson Cooper, Leonardo da Vinci, Steven Spielberg, Charles Schwab).

Hey, don't take a dig at me. I'm not the one who is saying they're dumb. It was in the answer choice. So it looks like you've got a beef with LSAC, not me...

rinkrat19 wrote:

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:Does anyone see besides me pick up on the subtle humor that the LSAT throws at you? For example, this question from PT 34-2-12 about "synthesiacs"…the correct answer says that "synthesiacs demonstrate a…systematic impairment in their ability to use words". Basically the LSAC is saying that the explanation for this phenomenon is that this subset of people are stupid. I find myself chuckling at their subtle humor. And I quietly wonder to myself whether or not I'll burst out laughing on test day as I've done several times during my prep.

It's "synesthesiac," not synthesiac. I think you might be misidentifying the subset of people who is stupid. (Hint: it's you.)

Wiki tells me that Nikola Tesla had synesthesia. So did Richard Feynman, Vladimir Nabokov, Wassily Kandinsky, and Duke Ellington. All complete morons, I'm sure.

Deaf people often have trouble using words. Are all deaf people stupid too, now that we're defining stupid as "trouble using words"?

How about dyslexic people? (Alexander Graham Bell, Richard Branson, Lewis Carroll, Pete Conrad, Anderson Cooper, Leonardo da Vinci, Steven Spielberg, Charles Schwab).

And you're missing my point anyway, which is that I get a good chuckle out of some of the answer choices. Why you responded in such a visceral manner to an innocent opinion is beyond me. Are you a synesthesiac? Lol

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:the correct answer says that "synthesiacs demonstrate a…systematic impairment in their ability to use words". Basically the LSAC is saying that the explanation for this phenomenon is that this subset of people are stupid.

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:Hey, don't take a dig at me. I'm not the one who is saying they're dumb. It was in the answer choice. So it looks like you've got a beef with LSAC, not me...

You are, in fact, the one interpreting "impairment in their ability to use words" as "stupid." I was merely pointing out why that's fucking retarded.

I am not a synesthesiac or anything else particularly noteworthy.

I get your point. There may have been amusing LSAC moments (it was several years ago for me and I don't recall); this is not one.

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:Does anyone see besides me pick up on the subtle humor that the LSAT throws at you? For example, this question from PT 34-2-12 about "synthesiacs"…the correct answer says that "synthesiacs demonstrate a…systematic impairment in their ability to use words". Basically the LSAC is saying that the explanation for this phenomenon is that this subset of people are stupid. I find myself chuckling at their subtle humor. And I quietly wonder to myself whether or not I'll burst out laughing on test day as I've done several times during my prep.

It's "synesthesiac," not synthesiac. I think you might be misidentifying the subset of people who is stupid. (Hint: it's you.)

Wiki tells me that Nikola Tesla had synesthesia. So did Richard Feynman, Vladimir Nabokov, Wassily Kandinsky, and Duke Ellington. All complete morons, I'm sure.

Deaf people often have trouble using words. Are all deaf people stupid too, now that we're defining stupid as "trouble using words"?

How about dyslexic people? (Alexander Graham Bell, Richard Branson, Lewis Carroll, Pete Conrad, Anderson Cooper, Leonardo da Vinci, Steven Spielberg, Charles Schwab).

Hey, don't take a dig at me. I'm not the one who is saying they're dumb. It was in the answer choice. So it looks like you've got a beef with LSAC, not me...

What's amusing is your inability to parse language/your poor analytical skill. Perhaps that will improve upon attendance of a law school. The answer choice doesn't say they're stupid, it says "a systematic impairment...in the ability to use words." You're the one attaching the conclusion that that description is the equivalent of "stupid." Anyone who isn't a moron would recognize there are many, many conditions that can be described, objectively, scientifically, as "a systematic impairment in the ability to use words." Dyslexia, synesthesia, severe social anxiety disorders, etc. Stephen Hawking has a pretty severe and systematic impairment in the ability to use words, is he "stupid?"

Frankly, the fact that you aren't recognizing the difference between the literal words used and your own conclusory interpretation of what they should mean, not what they do mean, is not a great omen for your ability to comprehend basic legal concepts.

P.S. the reason people respond "viscerally" is because you are in fact saying something objectively stupid while holding yourself out as some sort of discerning individual able to pick up on this "subtle" humor regarding other people's stupidity. Smugness is rarely well-received, especially wrong-headed smugness.

I agree with the above posters: the situation described by OP is not funny at all and is almost certainly not intended as a joke. Having a neurological disorder that impairs speech production does not necessarily make one unintelligent, and making fun of people with such disorders is not funny.

Post removed.

RZ5646 wrote:I agree with the above posters: the situation described by OP is not funny at all and is almost certainly not intended as a joke. Having a neurological disorder that impairs speech production does not necessarily make one unintelligent, and making fun of people with such disorders is not funny.

+1^ Making fun of disabled people is not only not funny, it speaks volumes about the person who believes it is funny.

One of the LR questions with an answer choice that is actually funny may very well apply to OP:

PT19 S4 Q#9 AC (C): "Neither Neptune nor Pluto is as massive as Uranus"

If you laugh at the LSAT, eventually the LSAT will laugh at you

One Indian LSAT question about speaking positively to flowers when they grow made me chuckle. And a parallel reasoning in 2000's about "to fly from Beijing to Lhasa you have to fly to Chengdu, and to fly to Chengdu you need to first fly to Xi'an" gave me a sense of appreciable familiarity since I am a Chinese. LSAT makers do seem to know something and base their questions on some elements of truth (I thought all place names were fictional), though I doubt there was no direct flight from Beijing to Chengdu even back in 2000.

And OP, you are terrible.

What amazes me is how a couple of you have the audacity to judge me based on an innocent comment. The vitriol and the hatred with which you write is clearly reflective of the position in which your heart and your life currently is. Maybe you should go do a little self reflection. I've thoroughly enjoyed what I've interpreted as the LSAC's subtle humor. In no means have I degraded people with general disabilities nor do I think a person with such impairments should be regarded as less of a person simply by virtue of them being disabled. Lighten up and get a life.

Jeffort wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:I agree with the above posters: the situation described by OP is not funny at all and is almost certainly not intended as a joke. Having a neurological disorder that impairs speech production does not necessarily make one unintelligent, and making fun of people with such disorders is not funny.

+1^ Making fun of disabled people is not only not funny, it speaks volumes about the person who believes it is funny.

One of the LR questions with an answer choice that is actually funny may very well apply to OP:

PT19 S4 Q#9 AC (C): "Neither Neptune nor Pluto is as massive as Uranus"

Hahaha. I got a good chuckle out of that. Thanks for that

lol synesthesia isn't a disorder. It's a pretty cool phenomenon

HarvardHopeful93 wrote:What amazes me is how a couple of you have the audacity to judge me based on an innocent comment. The vitriol and the hatred with which you write is clearly reflective of the position in which your heart and your life currently is. Maybe you should go do a little self reflection. I've thoroughly enjoyed what I've interpreted as the LSAC's subtle humor. In no means have I degraded people with general disabilities nor do I think a person with such impairments should be regarded as less of a person simply by virtue of them being disabled. Lighten up and get a life.

Post removed.

On my real LSAT (like number 74 or something) there was an argument about a vacuum cleaner salesman and the argument was so ridiculous that I laughed in my head and couldn't help but smile.

Why not have fun with the LSAT if you can, right?!

hahaha lsat writers are humans toooo.

what would be twisted is if they put a troll question:
"if mike scores below 170, his dreams will be shattered. Mike's dreams were shattered, therefor he must have scored below a 170. The flawed reasoning displayed in the argument is most similar to:"