5) Don't go through a breakup or divorce or pregnancy or death/illness of a loved one, etc...
I know many law students aren't big on math, but DF's point about the margin for the LSAT is key. When you're looking at the top 50 schools, the range of LSAT scores is relatively small, and many are within each others' margins. If you look at the LSAT scores of those same schools, there is often a 2-3 point range from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile. So yes, on the macro scale, people who earn 170s on the LSAT tend to do better than those who earn 150s. However, when the differences are between 164 and 168 or 168 and 174, while the score differences can have a huge impact on admissions, they're actually incredibly close generally and probable not that indicative of performance in law school.
Having read through most of this thread, I find that many of the comments, though germane to a particular sub-aspect of the problem and question at hand, don't truly get at, nor refute the more general claim that one can use UGPA and LSAT numbers to provide a probabilistic assessment of a person's chances of success at a law school.
It's a fairly straightfoward probabilistic argument. And it should be relatively uncontroversial that we can show that there is a good probability that a person with both a signicantly higher UGPA and LSAT score over his or her school peers will likely do better than most of them most of the time (granted there is some variation of predictive power between schools, such as in instances raised by Lwoods quoted above).
But a probability is just that. Unfortunately, it's not something that can absolutely guarantee a certain level of success (e.g. top 5%) for a random individual with those features, much less for a specific individual (the OP). It's still only a likelihood.
So for the OP, he or she needs to understand that there is no absolute guarantee that using Hutz and Goodman's strategy would result in his or her desired outcome at a particular law school (it's technically possible that one may end up at the bottom of their class in such a situation - even if not probable). Whether that means H & G's strategy is justified on other grounds (when considering other factors deemed important to a particular person's desired goals), however, is a different question. It might still be justified on other grounds, I believe.