I disagree; the criticism isn't about the term itself, it's that the term isn't readily explained on the site.
If, as explained, the term is widely understood by the target market, then this criticism is invalid (but caused by the poster not knowing the target market). If the criticism was valid, and the target market didn't understand the term, then the site owner knows that he/she should add an explanation.
As the original author, I agree. The comment in question made me check the adwords keyword tool for the search volume of "Law School Admission Test"
It was, as I thought, fairly small relative to LSAT searches overall. But it's good to confirm that.
Also told me that there's enough searches to make a post along the lines of "What is the Law School Admission Test?" worthwhile, to catch students at the very start of their journey.
If, as explained, the term is widely understood by the target market, then this criticism is invalid (but caused by the poster not knowing the target market). If the criticism was valid, and the target market didn't understand the term, then the site owner knows that he/she should add an explanation.
The actual definition is sort-of irrelevant.