Prep-tests, entertainment, and my econ essay

Well I got my econ essay critiques today. First off I was told my paper was solid, and then a few format changes were suggested. I was also told to title the sections. I can only assume this means Hedonic Damages or Discount Rate. Overall I thought her critique was very fair, though I did not understand her claim that the discount rate cannot be set because people have different risk preferences. Am I wrong or does the court system not care? I mean, so we award different damages for totaling somebodies car based on the vehicle owner's risk preference? No. It seems to me the court has its own risk preference, though I cannot decide if it is risk neutral (which i think it is, constant marginal utility of money) or risk adverse (increasing marginal utility of money). I'll post the full essay here when I complete it.
Went bowling today. Averaged a 150, high score a 163. I'm starting to enjoy bowling for the mindless nerd sport that it is. I don't take myself very seriously, but I have a lot of fun. A good way to pass the time I guess.

Finished a practice test. 168 (89/101). My section breakdown is as follows:
RC: 25/27, Games: 20/24, LR1: 24/26, LR2: 20/24. I didn't get to one question in games (an easy one) and didn't have time to think one all the way through and had to guess between two answers. Oh well, such is the LSAT. As for the others, time was not a factor. I had 3 or the 4 I got wrong on LR2 as answers I was "also considering" (aka second choice) but that doesn't score points. I really hope I can score at my practice score average or higher, but I am not holding my breath. My LSAT could be the difference between Northwestern, Notre Dame, Illinois, or Kent.

No pressure there right?

I don't really have any deep legal thoughts tonight, other than I finally found the Pepsi Harrier Jet court case where a guy bought a bunch of pepsi points and demanded Pepsi give him a Harrier Jet. The case is Leonard v. Pepsico and is a good example of people who cannot take a joke. I think it was clear from the commercial that the offer was not serious. I do not understand why this guy thought he could get specific performance. I find it particularly entertaining that the Plaintiff demanded the court "explain why the commercial is funny." I wish I could find the actual text, but I just do not care enough to look for it, I have the basic gist.

The only thing I am Still curious about is if the guy got the money back for the Pepsi Points he purchased (at a discounted rate) in order to buy the jet. He spend $700,000 and the case does not stipulate anywhere that he should have his money refunded. This is an interesting side not that I am curious about.
Thats all for tonight.