Thanks so much for the info! A few thoughts:
1. You mentioned, "For any questions I got wrong or got correct but was not 100% certain with, I go through the online student center or use additional online resources elsewhere on the internet to understand them." What I would do here first is simply note your answer is wrong, and then look at it again a few times until you feel like you are sure why you missed it and why the right answer is right, THEN go to explanation resources and confirm that's the case. It's all about the difference between seeing it yourself vs having someone else show you. Small but very important in terms of what you look for in questions. And, don't be concerned if it takes a few days before you feel comfortable with a problem. Setting aside a hard question and then returning to it later is not just ok, it's the right way to approach this.
2. You said, "Admittedly, I sometimes have difficulty understanding exactly why each incorrect answer was incorrect and could do a better job with this." That's ok, and it happens to everyone! The struggle is part of the process and actually helps you because it's a signal that something in the problem isn't making sense. Identify what that is and make note of it, whether it's an odd phrase in the stimulus or a weird form or reasoning, etc.
3. The blind review
on each LR section. This is a good approach, just make sure you track what you are missing religiously. Knowing what you've been missing provides a map to getting better.
4. That inconsistency you are seeing relates to how the LSAT tests a wide variety of areas each time, which makes some tests better for you and some worse. I talk about that here: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid/310 ... sat-casino
. For students who aren't 100% on the fundamentals or who aren't machine-like in their approach, these variations in exams often reveal themselves in varying performances. LR is great on one test, but then not so great on the next while LG seems to do the same thing, but on different tests. You fix it by doing the following:
- A. Make sure you really know the concepts and techniques. For example, can identify premises and conclusions without thinking, do you know the basic argument flaws, or do you know all the ways to break down causality in LR, and so on. Instant execution with no delays is your goal.
B. You look at questions repeatedly until they are second nature. Review, review, review. Stumble on a question? Look at it again a few days later. Get to know questions so well you could teach it to your friends without missing a beat, and without stumbling over any of the ideas.
5. Last, and perhaps most important, inconsistency can also relate to your analysis of the stimulus. How good do you feel coming out of each stimulus? Do you feel like you understand what is being said? Is your clarity on the argument as good as you'd like, or do you find yourself uncertain of exactly what has been said in many cases? If it's the latter, then the first place to start is with that—in those sections of untimed questions, stop after the stimulus and make an assessment of how strongly you feel about your stimulus understanding, and then compare that to how you perform when answering each question. If you see a connection between problems with the stimulus and missing questions, then you'll know that has to be part of your study focus.
Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!