Top Law Schools

I've always had the impression from reading this forum and talking to people who have scored well on the LSAT that reading the Powerscore Bibles and taking as many practice tests as possible were the most standard approaches to doing well on the test. My study plan is fairly simple:
The first two weeks: Read through both the Powerscore LGB and LRB bibles.
Then spend the next 4 months taking 40+ diagnostic tests from all three of the "Next 10" series and individually purchased LSATs. After taking each test, I'll spend several hours going over each question and figuring out why it's right or wrong, why I got the answer right or wrong, etc.
I have noticed that a lot of people here are using the pithypike method, LSAT blog method, etc. which involve the first month or two using almost exclusively individual drills, making three copies of each logic game, using the Kaplan mastery book to prepare as well. I'm starting to doubt now if my approach is flawed, and if I should jump on the bandwagon and use a study plan like Pithpike's. I'm only about a week into my prep, and still working through the Bibles. I just don't want to miss out on a better method to prepare for the LSAT and don't want to find out later on that I could have prepared for this in a better way. What are the benefits to the individual drilling of problem types in comparison to taking full length tests and reviewing each question? I'm perfectly willing to change my direction in study approaches because I'm only a week into preparing for the October LSAT.

Full-length PT's help simulate actual test conditions, including things like test fatigue, that are not captured by individual drills. The point is to make conditions as close to the actual LSAT as possible to help prepare yourself for what test day will be like.

Thanks. Many of the study plans I have seen incorporated drilling, and while I can see the merits to it, I felt that if I broke up the thirty practice tests and drilled the questions based upon question type, then I couldn't use them for full length tests. I would have already seen the questions/known the answers, and it wouldn't be an effective indicator of my progress. As a weak standardized test taker, I feel like I need to take as many full length practice tests as I can, ones with questions I've not already seen to prep for this. Am I completely wrong in my thinking with this?

Every person is different. I take a mixture of both. I do individual sections for accuracy and I do full length tests more rarely to simulate the fatigue of the real thing.

If you're taking in October, you'll have access to 65 released exams.

Suppose you want to take 32 PrepTests (as timed 5-section exams). That'll use up 40 PrepTests in total since you need to splice in sections from 8 other PrepTests to simulate the 5th experimental section.

65 - 40 = 25 PrepTests you can use for drilling purposes.

-Steve

I kinda have the same question, but I've just been doing a mixture.
I usually take individual drills then after a certain number take a practice test as kind of a end to the chapter, if that makes any sense.
Either way I think a mixture should be applied, all of a single approach might not be desirable.