Top Law Schools

this is what I am doing now:

since i am drilling, all the problems generally are of the same kind. and what i end up doing is writing down why my correct answer is correct and why the others are wrong. and then after i'm done with a packet, i look through my answers and look for patterns in my reasoning for right and wrong answers. i do this for every question, regardless of right or wrong. what this helps me do is that at the end of a packet, I can look back and see what type of answers are generally correct and what are trap answer choice patterns for certain LR questions. (i only do this for LR; for LG i do each game three times and generally get it by the end). i do this in hopes that come about july (8 weeks before exam), I can enter full length PTs and when i see a certain LR, I understand what I should be looking for.

i'm really lost as to what else i should be looking for when analyzing when drilling. any help or assistance would be greatly appreciated.

edit: for example, i've worked through the sufficient assumption packet and i've observed the following patterns:
1) most of the time, there's a new term introduced in the conclusion. so the task is to bridge a gap between the premise and this new conclusion
2) attack the answer choices with a pre-phrased answer rather than checking each one
3) vast majority of the time, the wrong answer choices simply do not address the argument core. i've noticed a LOT of wrong answers (if i were to put a number i'd say 60-70% are simply out of scope or irrelevant, and a close second trap answer is a choice that weakens the argument)
5) look for strong language
5) if not new term is introduced, look for faults within the premises.
6) diagram when its a clear conditional (and make sure to look for contrapositive answers)

^is this the sort of analysis that is useful? i am not too sure how i use this when taking PTs and if such a strategy (writing down analysis for EVERY question and looking for patterns at the end) is considered good review.

please help y'all

cavalier2015 wrote:this is what I am doing now:

since i am drilling, all the problems generally are of the same kind. and what i end up doing is writing down why my correct answer is correct and why the others are wrong. and then after i'm done with a packet, i look through my answers and look for patterns in my reasoning for right and wrong answers. i do this for every question, regardless of right or wrong. what this helps me do is that at the end of a packet, I can look back and see what type of answers are generally correct and what are trap answer choice patterns for certain LR questions. (i only do this for LR; for LG i do each game three times and generally get it by the end). i do this in hopes that come about july (8 weeks before exam), I can enter full length PTs and when i see a certain LR, I understand what I should be looking for.

i'm really lost as to what else i should be looking for when analyzing when drilling. any help or assistance would be greatly appreciated.

edit: for example, i've worked through the sufficient assumption packet and i've observed the following patterns:
1) most of the time, there's a new term introduced in the conclusion. so the task is to bridge a gap between the premise and this new conclusion
2) attack the answer choices with a pre-phrased answer rather than checking each one
3) vast majority of the time, the wrong answer choices simply do not address the argument core. i've noticed a LOT of wrong answers (if i were to put a number i'd say 60-70% are simply out of scope or irrelevant, and a close second trap answer is a choice that weakens the argument)
5) look for strong language
5) if not new term is introduced, look for faults within the premises.
6) diagram when its a clear conditional (and make sure to look for contrapositive answers)

^is this the sort of analysis that is useful? i am not too sure how i use this when taking PTs and if such a strategy (writing down analysis for EVERY question and looking for patterns at the end) is considered good review.

please help y'all

The only thing I would add is that you should try to see how you could have better predicted the correct answer based on the stimulus and knowing what the question type is. Are you reading the question stem first, btw?