First, to be clear: I will not be arguing that test takers who are blind or visually impaired — like Angelo Binno, whose settlement with the Law School Admissions Council may eventually force LSAC to change or remove the Logic Games section altogether — should have to take the Logic Games section on the LSAT. I am neither a medical expert nor a psychometrician, but after working with an untold number of students I feel confident saying that visual aids like set-ups and scenarios make these games more manageable for basically everyone. It seems manifestly unfair that test takers who cannot use such visual aids should be forced to take the section, and I applaud Binno’s fight to level the LSAT’s playing field.
For years, law schools were wedded to the LSAT. Like any marriage, it had its ups and downs, but it was a bedrock relationship. The LSAT, after all, was the test developed for law schools. The LSAT pledged to help law school assess the lawyerly mettle of applicants; law schools promised to use the LSAT as its primary means of applicant appraisal. Through these vows, a mutually beneficial partnership was forged.