I was an Economics major in college, and one of the concepts we discussed was “sunk costs.” In Econ terms, a sunk cost is one that has already been expended and which cannot be recovered. The thinking goes that since you’ve spent it and you aren’t getting it back, you shouldn’t figure those costs into any decisions you make going forward. Examples of sunk costs include things like advertising, the use of consultants, product research, and staff training. If, for example, you had spent $100,000 on product research for a new widget but the widget wasn’t selling, then you should ignore that $100,000 in making future decisions because it’s a sunk cost and won’t impact the future sales (or lack thereof) of the product. The “Sunk Cost Fallacy” (sometimes called the Concorde Fallacy) is one where further investment is deemed necessary because otherwise the money already spent will be lost, but thinking in this manner ignores the fact that additional investment can accrue more losses (meaning, be careful about throwing good money after bad).
So, why the Econ lesson here in an LSAT blog? Because some of the things we frequently hear from LSAT prep students are based on a sunk cost fallacy, and I've always found it a useful discussion because it can help inform the choices you make, or plan to make.