Top Law Schools

I'm gunning for 170+

Games are good (-0 or -1).
RC is fine (-0 to -3 (which I'll live with)).
LR is my biggest problem right now. On most tests I could probably only afford to get anywhere from a -4 total to a -6 at the most on LR to stay at that 170. But currently I'd say my LR average is anywhere from -8 to -12. I can't accept this.

Specifically, the Flaw and weaken questions. These always seem to slow me down, and I find myself incredibly stressed and rushing for time when I come across these. I tried to consult the Bible, but to be totally and completely honest, I don't feel the LRB has been helpful at all for these two question types in particular. I have memorized all the flaw types, but knowing which question types to look for doesn't seem to help me ID the right answer.

What suggestions would you guys have on how to conquer the LR (or get it down to a tolerable level)? Something quick and easy that I can implement in the next week and a half. I'd really appreciate any help.

Also, would you guys suggest maybe eschewing doing full PTs for the moment and focusing a heavy chunk of time on improving LR solely? I mean, I'm feeling very confident about games, and RC like I said, I'll live with a -3. But LR has me worried.

Hey, I have a lot of trouble with Weaken questions as well. They are time consuming and bog me down like crazy.

However, I think Flaw questions like Assumption, Justify, and Method questions can be improved on by drilling exclusively on those problems. Read the wrong answers because like LRB suggests there are a lot of "can" wrong answers that you can easily cross out because they are repeated so often.

Also, really important for Flaw questions is prephrasing. You don't have to have the EXACT flaw type (given by LRB) but if you get an idea, just quickly scan the answers and cross out the ones that have nothing to do with it and then spend a few seconds deciding between contenders. Flaw questions, IMO, are the easiest to improve on.

Dude, you sound exactly like me. Although I am not generally perplexed by weaken questions LR is keeping me from the 170's.

Subscribed to thread for some advice.

Weaken is my best section so far (have not reached flaw as yet--working my way through the bible and after every chapter....I flex my skill on PT7-39 using the types breakdown on LSAT blog).

The trick that works best for me is:
1. Zero in on the conclusion, since that is what you NEED to weaken.
2. The right answer will NEVER completely dismiss/destroy the conclusion. The correct answer will however, show that there is an alternative.
3. It also helps if you know whether the question is conditional or cause & effect question. If conditional, make either the suff. or the nec. condition occur without the other or reverse. If it is cause & effect, then BINGO! If there is a causal relation in the conclusion, you already know it is flawed.

Hope this helps.