I 100% agree that you could still perform averagely on the WG and still go on to thrive at an elite firm, and I also agree that in many ways it likely is just an effective way of cutting down applicants. When you get 4,000 applicants like some of the MC firms do, a test like the WG is a straightforward and mostly useful way of doing that.As there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers showing the usefulness of the WG, there are also plenty of papers showing that the WG is deeply flawed. I know someone who graduated with a first in PPE and received the academic prize for the highest mark. He always used to score 20-25 out of 40. I don't think this person lacks critical thinking skills, as his degree was PPE. He also got a TC at a well-known firm.
I was also told by grad rec from the firm where I did the vac scheme that they use the WG to filter out the number of app (for example, Linklaters rejecting people with 38/40 and taking people with 25/40).
However, I agree with your point about firms using to measure your critical thinking skills. But that doesn't necessary mean that the WG is fully reliable. There is plenty of evidence which points to its flaws. Also the sample size is too small to infer that it is indeed a reliable tool of recruitment. I simply think that it's used to cut down apps. I have been told this by grad rec, associates, etc. But again, it comes down to your own views on it,
My main point is though I still understand the point of it: it evaluates your ability to critically analyse, interpret information, and review arguments, which will all be useful as a lawyer. However, I’m less convinced of the benefits of Arctic Shores as I don’t think your ability to remember a sequence, pop balloons, or how long you want to last on that unlocking exercise before you throw your laptop across the room do reflect any abilities to perform well on a VS/TC.