Proposed LSAT Adversity Score Adjustments

What ho, good reader!  The year says it's 2019 and in our long progression of tea-bagging the thin line between parody and reality, the SAT now intends to algo-rythymo up an Adversity Score.  This ensures that the long tradition of wealthy white people rigging overly-complex systems to their advantage will continue unabated while middle class folks who bought homes near nice schools and, generally, second and third generation Asians who play it straight will continue to get rammed.

 It seems only fitting that the LSAT should adopt an Adversity Score to capture those sorts of students who might excel in law school but just not be good at logical reasoning.  I would like to propose we give a questionnaire to determine whether prospective law students should be given Adversity Points - and I suspect that most should, because let's face it: everyone's life has been difficult or else they're exactly the type of people law schools really really want.

 As starters, I'll suggest the following:

QUESTION 1:  Which of the following best describes your skin tone?
A:   Cocoa   [+10]
B:   Caramel  [+5]
C:   Cotton Candy  [+2]
D.   I am now hungry  [-20; diabetes is not a form of diversity!]

QUESTION 2:  Which of the following was closest to your house growing up.
A.   KFC  [+8]
B.   Chik-fil-A  [+4]
C.   An O.G. Asian restaurant with no English menu serving the best chicken dish you've ever had  (+5, International Law!)
D.   A home where a personal, dedicated chef wouldn't dream of subjecting his "clients" to fried chicken [+25]

QUESTION 3:  Describe the pool in your backyard growing up.
A.  My homie's blood after the police done him raw.  [Automatic T2 Admission]
B.  Urine b/c the plumbing never worked  [+7]
C.  A li'l crick that ran the length o' the holler up to the bend [+3]
D.  One of those metallic above-ground things [...just...rejected]
E.  An in-ground pool, you know, typical McMansion stuff.  My step-mom sat beside it all the time and pretended to read trade fiction.  [-10]
F.  Have you seen Hearst Castle?  [Automatic T1 Admission]

QUESTION 4:  Have you ever had to work for a living?
A.  Yes, doesn't everyone?  [+10]
B.  God no  [+10]

QUESTION 5:  Are you good at trigonometry?
A.  Yes  [+5; need STEM!]
B.  No, I was more into reading and writing and history  [+10; obviously disadvantaged]
C.  What's this trigonometry?  Like a gun thing?  [+5 and Automatic T4 Admission]
D.  That's a bit off on a tangent, wouldn't you co-sine?  [GOODBYE FAKER]

QUESTION 6:  Have you ever brought a woman to orgasm?
A.  Yes  [+5]
B.  Well, myself, I guess  [+10]
C.  No...  [0]
D. ...like I paid attention to that [-10]
E.  The female orgasm is a physiological myth propagated by Zionist femininazi pigs [-50; but do you have a trust fund?]

QUESTION 7: Do you plan on taking out student loans?
A.  Yes  [+10]
B.  No, I believe in thrift and have saved for law school  [0]
C.  No, I have a trust fund  [+10]

QUESTION 8:  Do you believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document?
A.  Yes [+10]
B.  O, Listen!  I can barely hear its desperate, short breaths and the slow, methodical thump of its redoubtable heart over the deafening cacophonous march of totalitarianism, of censorship, of fascism, of retrogression!  Its blood ink has faded with age and its paper skin wizened but, the document persists, and as a wise codger, we would benefit mightily from hearing its feeble but strong voice bellowing the priceless wisdom of experience.  [+11]
C.  Citing Stephen Breyer on this point...  [+12]
D.  "It depends" [+13]

And so on.

With enough questions, everyone's individual diversity and adversity can be accurately accounted for, ensuring that law school admissions are fair, rationally based, and entirely the broken turnstile for the masses that they were always intended to be.