I don’t understand what you think my point is or what I am “pretending”, but you’re answering something different than anything I have argued. These tests are

I don’t understand what you think my point is or what I am “pretending”, but you’re answering something different than anything I have argued. These tests are very clearly learnable, and nobody said anything about “lost causes” or “innate talent”. The top-level comment claimed that it was all but impossible for someone to get a near-perfect LSAT score without extensive targeted training on the test specifically. I claim that this is an oversimplification which overlooks people who have extensively trained related more generic kinds of skills. Then you made a point about whether having everyone do test prep should be considered “cheating” or a “bad thing”, and I responded by arguing that test prep is individually rational but a collective waste of time (a much more severe waste in some countries than it is in the USA). Personally I think we should use some other mechanism(s) for gatekeeping legal training (and other schooling), so that incentives to do well at the gate-passing task are more closely aligned with meaningful training for effective citizenship and generic intellectual work, or perhaps with student passions and aptitudes.