How are your explanations different then kaplan? Just a comparison, b/c kaplan has answers for ALL of the preptests.
In my mind, there are several differences.
First, and I do not know if this is going to come out right, but when I read a Kaplan explanation, I feel as though they already know the correct response and are explaining why it is correct. That is nice, but that is not what you have to accomplish during an exam. In fact, it is the opposite. Their explanations never tell you how to look at it from the direction you need to look at it when taking an exam - not knowing the correct response beforehand. That is an entirely different thought process. That is how I try to look at the questions in my explanations - the same direction you are doing it during an exam. I start with explaining the logic behind an argument. I go through the response options A to E (for the vast majority of my explanations) and write what I would be thinking about it at that moment in time. I always write my explanations before I look up the correct response so I do not poison my thinking.
In addition, many times they do not get it right when explaining why an incorrect response is incorrect. Nobody knows they are wrong because, they are right about it being incorrect. (That happens a lot in explanations in this forum also). Learning why incorrect responses are incorrect is as important to this exam as learning why correct ones are correct. The students have no idea how often the explanations get these wrong. (That happens a lot in explanations in this forum also). Even many they get right, they are not complete enough about. I have read lots of complaints from Kaplan students (and others about their sources) that many times an incorrect response is alleged to be "outside the scope" of the argument. While that may well be correct, it does not teach anything. I have tried to make it a point in all my explanations, that, if I write that a response option is outside the scope of the argument, I always say why. (This regards the issue of relevance. Students who are hung-up thinking this exam is about question types do not understand that relevance is the most tested logical issue on a LSAT. They do not get it because there are no questions directly about it. But, it is. It underlies the structure of the entire exam. Learning relevance is something many of my students have commented about. There is no other concept you can learn that will add more points to your score. Yet, it is very hard to create an organized process to teach what is relevant. I think that is one reason the Big Four ignore it - or at least do not focus on it. I have found it is easier to teach what is not relevant. The easiest way to do that is to point out why thousands of response options are irrelevant. That is another thing my explanations try to accomplish for you.)
Some other times I feel as though they came up with the correct response through some type of premonition. It is like they already know the correct response beforehand. A good example is many times they pre-phrase an expected correct response to a weakening question. Then, hallelujah, the one they pre-phrased is among the choices. It is very unlikely anybody could accomplish that during an exam. LSAC uses too many ways to weaken an argument for someone to accurately predict the correct response to such questions. But, they never tell you why they pre-phrased that particular response from among all the possibilities. It is uncanny how they keep doing this (but I bet it has something to do with the fact they have an answer sheet in front of them when they write their explanations). But, they never tell you why they pre-phrased that particular response. In addition, as I wrote earlier, this is not how you have to do it on test day. You have to understand the argument and know what types of things will weaken it. Then, you find one of them amongst the response options. That is how I explain them.
As far as games, I think my explanation have two big advantages. First, my diagramming method is far simpler than anybody else's. I cannot take credit for inventing it. It is the method puzzle people have been using for these type games for decades. But, unlike the Big Four, I am not concerned with creating a system I can claim as my intellectual property. I am just a guy who writes explanations. Plus, my diagrams do not rely on memorizing patterns. They involve looking at and understanding the qualities of the conditions and restrictions (that nasty thing called thinking that the Big Four are trying to avoid). It takes very little to realize the advantages to this system. (That is why it has been in use far longer than LSAT prep companies have existed). In fact, again,you can read this in many posts in the forum, the best game scores usually figure this out on their own.
The second advantage is understanding how to go about figuring out the correct response to AR questions. As far as Kaplan, they are way too into hypotheticals. They are very inefficient. (It is part of the system that is designed to get you thriugh three of the games without too much thinking). I do not have a comprehensive program for this. But, after you complete an exam, if you read though how I figured out the correct responses, you will learn tons.
None of the prep companies has a clue in the world about reading comp. It is designed to test a skill they have never learned and they do not have. Lawyers read differently than other people. There are no lawyers at any of the prep companies. The Kaplans were teachers (I believe). Robin did not get through law school. The guy from PS just used Robin's ideas and Blueprint just stole them. I do not know about Princeton except they sucked 15 years ago - the last time I was familiar with their product. (By the way, when I write "Big Four," I do not count Blueprint. They are merely a subset of Testmasters.) You can read many of my posts in this forum about this issue (how to handle reading comp). My explanations go along with those thoughts.
Anyway, thanks for asking.