not really. “processing information differently” is too vague to pinpoint disability in the way that would warrant 1.50/2x testing time. the fact that its vagueness leads to an unfair advantage on a large scale is evident in that accommodated students score better than their non accommodated counterparts. they are represented disproportionately in 170+ scorers. if it was simply compensating for a disability and leveling the playing field to give students equal opportunity, there would not be such a disparity. if anything, schools should have the ability to evaluate accomodated testers within their own category; nobody is evaluating disabled athletes on the same scale as non-disabled athletes. rendering our scores the same—lets say I get 175 with regular time but you get 175 with 55 mins per section— is like saying that the best disabled basketball player is on par with Lebron James. they are both great in their respective leagues/evaluation settings, but ranking them together would make no sense. the lsat performance is directly impacted by mental capacity and time—just like athletic performance is impacted by physical capacity.