First I will say that if you are trying to break in to the 170s that is obviously different than breaking into the 150s, but no matter which group you are in, don't beat yourself up. This stuff is hard and you are trying to be better than a bunch of other people who also want to be lawyers.
If you have put in some work but are struggling with a barrier, chances are you have a good base to work from and you just need either a deeper understanding of the test or a better way to apply the tools you've already learned to use. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I often tell students that to learn and use a method that breaks down the LSAT and teaches both the logic behind it and the way it is put together you need to replace a lot of your instincts rather than just augmenting them.
Most people who take the LSAT have at least some talent for critically assessing information. You need an undergrad degree for law school so you have probably already been through at least a good chunk of a bachelor's program. Also, you want to be a lawyer, so you are probably at least a little bit argumentative
Now you are armed with a bunch of question types and tools to use on them but you are still struggling. People are telling you to target your weaknesses, but that isn't really helping either. What do you do? The answer won't be the same for everyone, but here are some things to try:
1. Take a step back and look at the big picture. Many prep methods, including the one I teach (Blueprint,) break the test down in to question types. They teach you how to recognize what type of question is being asked and give you tools to use once you do. But if you focus too heavily on the tips and tricks you will miss the forest for the trees.
For example: It is incredibly helpful to know that you should be looking for "weaker" answers if the prompt tells you to pick the answer that is "most strongly supported." After all, it is easier to support something if it isn't super strong. But if all you are thinking about is the tips and tricks you will start to fall in to traps on the harder questions. You should still always be doing the basic analysis. That way when the facts do support a stronger answer you don't second guess yourself and pick a weaker but flawed one.
Methods and tools are awesome but if you are too hyper-focused on them try slowing down for a bit. A lot of people say you should time everything, but you can't learn a skill while trying to rush. As long as you don't come to rely on methods you will never be able to pull off at speed, you are good. We'll talk about timing in a minute.
For LR, doing some practice questions where you force yourself to start with an in-depth analysis of the argument can start to give you the perspective you need to really benefit from the tools you've already learned. You can break down almost any LR question in to Conclusion and Supporting Evidence (in some of them the conclusion will be the answer choice you are picking, in the rest the whole argument(s) will be in the stimulus) Start doing it. The logic the test wants you demonstrate you understand is all in that relationship between evidence and conclusion. The tools are not a shortcut to avoid that analysis. It will not be faster to avoid that analysis. Even if it seems time consuming you will lose way more time on the back end if you don't do it.
For RC, try to avoid obsessive notation and just focus on who is arguing what. A lot of that jumbled dense information makes a lot more sense when you can place it as evidence supporting a specific point. If you can organize the passage in to claims and support it will also be a lot easier to come back and look up specific details later when you need to. It is hard to know what is important when reading and it is easy to get bogged down. If you don't know why something is there, don't expect yourself to be psychic, the knowledge you seek is often in the next line.
Games are all about learning an organized method and properly applying it so this is a bit tougher. If you are having trouble knowing which tools to use, try doing the same game a bunch of different ways. If you make yourself thoroughly understand enough games, you will start to get better at doing them the fast way. Remember, you are hitting a brick wall, it is okay to just try stuff even if it goes against the conventional wisdom. You can always to back to doing things the "right' way.
The other problem people who are stuck often (understandably) complain about is timing. This is a hard test to get through in the time allowed.
One possibility is that you haven't drilled enough. The test requires your top-level attention and the more things you can get on lockdown the more of that attention is free for the hard stuff. It is like learning to drive. When you first start you have to think about using your turn signal, but someone driving 10 years will just do it by rote. This is why it is a good idea to leave some lead-time between learning what there is to learn and taking the test.
Another possibility is that you are not spending your time within each question/passage/game efficiently. People often try to rush through the important bits in LR and then they spend 2x as long re-reading the answer choices because they haven't really understood the stimulus. With games, you are betting work up front for time-saved on the back end. Don't go down rabbit holes, but make sure you spend enough time trying to find the possible deductions. For all three sections, try doing timed practice then taking detailed notes about how you spent your time, then be scientific about it. Change one thing up, try that a few times, see how it goes. Remember you want to make sure you are applying your full attention/getting your best accuracy rate on the most questions possible. Don't hesitate to try strategies that involve skipping some things to maximize this.
A few last tips:
Don't second guess yourself as much early in sections and don't eliminate answers because they are "too good to be true." Yes the test is hard, but you know some stuff now, if it is too good to be true it probably IS true.
Remember that only your test-day score-counts. Don't get caught up in results-oriented thinking. If you judge yourself for every PT score you are not helping yourself, especially if you are switching things up and trying stuff out. Those scores are just data you can use to help improve. As hard as it is, promise to yourself that you will not treat any PT score as if it can tell you that you are good enough or that you can or cannot do this.
