If you’re in that lower half of the socioeconomic spectrum, you ought to be outraged by the slur to your intelligence reflected by Caroline Kitchener’s post in The Atlantic.

While law schools are steadily becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, they remain overwhelmingly upper-middle class. Only 5 percent of students at elite law schools come from families that fall in the bottom half of the socioeconomic spectrum—a number that has hardly changed since the 1960s. The Logic Games section contributes to this lack of socioeconomic diversity.

Calling it the logic “games” suggests that’s just another ploy of the elites to keep the maginalized down. After all, it’s a game. It games law school admissions. And as the post URL says, the game is “rigged,” a word that’s bandied about a lot lately. So what is this “Logic Game”?

As soon as I told my friends and family about my plans to take the LSAT, the standardized law-school admissions test, people started warning me about one particular set of questions. Analytical Reasoning, or “Logic Games,” is a section that tests your ability to order and group information. The questions are written to seem accessible and unintimidating—they ask you to analyze combinations of ice-cream flavors or animals in a zoo—but, every year, they stop tens of thousands of applicants from attending top law schools.

Well, sure, there are tens of thousands of applicants stopped from attending top law schools because they lack the capacity to do well with analytical reasoning. That’s what tests exist to do, prevent people who lack the intellectual ability to practice law from hogging all the seats at Harvard. And, from the look of things, it’s not doing a very good job of it.

The Logic Games section is different from all other sections on the most popular standardized tests—the MCAT, GRE, GMAT, and SAT—because it’s unlike anything students learn in high school or college. The section relies heavily on formal logic, a concept rarely taught outside of high-level college mathematics or philosophy courses.

Formal logic? As opposed to, informal logic? Or what has become popularly known among humanities majors as their feelz? After all, if you’re not taught this “concept” of formal logic, then you obviously can’t be expected to be, you know, formally logical, right? And this is so unfair, it’s exhausting.

“I was a biology major. In college, I took three calculus classes, two physics classes, and six chemistry classes,” said Laurel Kandianis, a first-year law student at Temple Law School. “And still, when I got to the Logic Games section on the test, I completely blanked. I guessed on 11 of the questions and canceled my score.”

When she stands up before a court, a person’s life in her hands, and “completely blanks,” will she be able to cancel the execution?

This paean to ignorance is meant to demonstrate how poor students, unable to spend the time and money to take LSAT prep courses to teach them how to game the game, and thus snag the socioeconomic marginalized seat at HYS that will make society fair and just, must fail. It’s merely assumed by the patriarchally-challenged author that normal people can’t possibly be capable of logic. If you don’t learn how to win the game, you’re a loser. After, she couldn’t do it, and it couldn’t possibly be because she isn’t, well, very logical?

There is an alternate theory to consider, which unsurprisingly eludes the writer. This is the Age of Emotion, where your feelings matter more than anything remotely resembling reasoned thought. You’re rewarded for having the “right” feelz in high school, college and Facebook. How you get there is easy-peasy: mix up a word salad of meaningless jargon and, poof, you’re brilliant. All your friends say so. Your profs gush at your social justice sensibilities. You should be a lawyer, to change the world for the better!

Except they are all lying to you. Law requires the ability to think analytically. To reason. To draw logical connections, and separate out those things that aren’t relevant no matter how they make you feel. That this has become totally foreign to so many students isn’t a matter of not having been formally taught to think, but having been trained not to think. You’ve been taught that thinking is for squares and shitlords, and truthiness is all one needs to achieve intellectual purity.

It’s not your fault that you have a skull full of mush. The nice folks putatively paid to change that have forsaken their duty in favor of instilling in you their gender and racial politics, no matter how irrational it may be. After all, they are as enamored with their feelz as they want you to be. And they can rationalize it secure in the knowledge that it’s right, even if it’s totally illogical.

But that doesn’t mean the problem with the LSAT, with your woeful incapacity to do well on the Logic Games isn’t your fault. Your need to find an external excuse for your intellectual deficits, and to impute your irrationality to poor people under the misguided assumption that because you have mush for brains, they must too, is entirely your fault. If you were just a wee bit more logical, you would grasp that the crap shoved into your head was nothing more than crap. You would realize that you can overcome it. But only if you have intellectual capacity to begin with.

There are reasons why the poor are underrepresented at top law schools. The education offered them in public schools tends to be poor at best. And then it’s disrupted by a plethora of collateral problems, ranging from not having sufficient food to eat to not having support for the value of education. Not to mention disruption in school because of behavioral problems, or the cultural lack of appreciation of higher education. And yes, there is also the lowered expectations imposed on the poor by racism.

You might have understood that there are other reasons, sound reasons, why this phenomenon is happening. And if you did, you might be better able to look to solutions to these problems. But the one “answer” that you came up with, that the poor are too stupid to be capable of logic, is total bullshit. That you may be has nothing to do with them. Good thing you’re a writer, because at least you can’t harm anyone as a lawyer.