Top Law Schools

So I've been studying since last year August and found out that I am still not ready for the February LSAT.

I've did PT's 36-41, 45-55 and 62 and want to save the rest for later on. I have been scoring in the the 155-160 and want to get that 170+.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I should effectively study for the June LSAT?

The logic games right now I am okay with, and the reading comprehension I am certainly improving on, it is just the logical reasoning part I have a problem with. I usually get around -9 and -12 wrong on the LR part.

I know that it is only myself that can effectively figure out what is the best strategy and how to study since its only yourself that knows your own weaknesses. But I need how on how to do approach that path effectively.

I was planning to take this Feb LSAT and I took PT 62 and got completely murdered on the LR. It's weird because during when I review after the test, I would get them all correct. Almost every new PT just looks so new from one another. I just feel that under timed conditions my thought processes just feels different.

Here is what I gathered so far:

What I am struggling with:
~Understanding the stimulus- what exactly the author is trying to get at and his unstated assumptions he is making
~Strengthen and weakening the arguments- I know you're not supposed to touch the premises and conclusions so I'm not really sure how to strengthen or weaken an argument.
~Flaw questions- It's hard for me to pinpoint where exactly the flaw is.
~Not knowing when to stop studying. Are "burnouts" subtle?
These are my weak points.

This is what I did since August on how to study for the LSAT:
~August-Oct-Learn each question type and section on the LSAT. Nov-Dec-Started doing PT's
~Everyday the whole day
~Taking a PT 2-3 times a week. After each PT, I would review the answers without looking at the answer sheet until the very end.

So I was wondering if anyone could help me with creating a schedule because I'm not sure if I'm doing it the right way...

Have you read the Powerscore and/or Manhattan guides?

Yea I have. It's not much help though when it comes to reinforcing what I learned though.

ElectricSheep wrote: ~Understanding the stimulus- what exactly the author is trying to get at and his unstated assumptions he is making
~Strengthen and weakening the arguments- I know you're not supposed to touch the premises and conclusions so I'm not really sure how to strengthen or weaken an argument.
~Flaw questions- It's hard for me to pinpoint where exactly the flaw is.
~Not knowing when to stop studying. Are "burnouts" subtle?
These are my weak points.

Who told you you can't touch the premises and conclusions? How else would you be able to weaken or strengthen? You can't attack or support an argument unless you deal with.. the argument. Even if it means taking out or building up a single component.

I think you need to go back and do another read of a good logical reasoning guide. Definitely check out the Manhattan guide if you haven't already. Your list makes me think you are struggling with some of the basic conceptions that you need to have a firm grasp of if you want to get anywhere near a solid score. Especially if you find you are having trouble even understanding the stimulus- drop everything else and pick up the books, stat.

ETA: I see you say you've read both the Manhattan and Powerscore guides, and it didn't "reinforce what [you] learned".. you need to go back to them, throw out what you currently think you know, and re-learn the fundamentals. Every PT should not seem new; once you've got a strong grasp of the fundamentals, you'll be able to recognize the few variations among questions and know how to effectively tackle them.