I just want to say good luck to everyone who is waiting for their scores. The waiting is stressful, but you all worked hard and have something to be proud of!

I think two things must be considered when thinking about how prep courses/materials are probably constructed.

1. People learn differently, and different ways of expressing material will resonate with different people.

2. LSAT prep companies likely create their material for the "average" LSAT taker.

Let's do the math, and please accept the premise that one should teach material differently based on how advanced one's knowledge of a subject is (i.e. you'd teach english or math differently to a college student than you would a middle schooler).

-In 2013-14, about 100,000 people took the LSAT

-Let's assume about 50% of them take some type of course or material.

-The 50th percentile test takers get around the low 150s. If a prep company creates material that is suitable for the average test taker +/-, say 20%, then they'd be capturing the middle 40th percentile, which is 40,000 people per year.

-Let's say they have 5% market share and their average revenue per customer is $349 (7sage's LSAT Premium package).

-That's about $698,000 per year. After cost of developing the program, overhead, taxes, etc., that's not a ton of profit for reinvestment/expansion.

If we run a similar analysis except assume they only target the top 10th percentile (164+), then the relevant revenue number would be $174,500. I know this doesn't include people who take courses but don't take the test etc., but it provides an idea of the numbers.

In other words, prep companies likely create their material with the goal of pushing you from a low 150 to maybe a mid 160, but don't necessarily tailor it to cause a jump from a mid 160 to a mid 170. People who want to do that are simply too expensive. The end conclusion is this: if you want to do a jump from a mid 160 to 170s+, you'll likely need to customize your learning by either coming up with methods that work best for your particular style, or mix and match course content until you figure out a combo that works for you.

I think the fundamental mindset behind this question should be reconsidered. Each PT should be considered an absolutely precious resource, and you should be doing everything you can to squeeze every last bit of learning out of every single one. Consider the following example cycle for taking and reviewing PTs.

http://tinypic.com/r/153bucl/8

If you are doing something this comprehensive, then running out of PTs shouldn't be an issue.

If you still want to consider whether to save PT's, then figure out how well you remember PT material. Some people have extremely good memories, so they can't reuse PT's. In this case, you should save a few. I have a terrible short and long-term memory, so I was able to reuse a lot of PTs after maybe a month of not seeing them.

170+ is definitely possible. I jumped from a 151 (diagnostic) to an end score of 173 (real thing). My brother went from 151 --> 171. One of my study partners got a 168/169 (can't remember which) on his first real attempt, got a 180 on his retake.

There is nothing genetic or inherent about this test. I hate when I hear people say that they just "aren't good" at the LSAT, as though some people come out of the womb being able to do RC or LG. Proper LSAT study isn't composed of learning tricks or shortcuts for beating the test, rather, it changes the way you think to make you more logical and less flawed in your thinking. Sometimes it takes a long time to transform your brain, but it's possible (i.e. brain plasticity).

As @ said, think about RC as one big LR section. LSAC uses many similar tricks on RC answer choices as they do for LR. There is an RC version of MBT questions, as well as RC strengthen and weaken questions. If there is a huge delta between your LR and RC performance, then diagnose why that may be, given that the two sections have a lot in common.

I agree with the comment by @ about bad habits, but would go even further and say that weeding out bad habits will likely be the biggest way you can impact your score. Consider which of the following buckets your weaknesses fall into and how each bucket can be addressed. This list isn't exhaustive:

1. Psychological Traps:

-Getting on "tilt" when you have issues with early questions/sections, which causes you to perform poorly on other sections. Also, seeing a question type that you expect to have difficulty on can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

-Mental fatigue

2. Difficulty Understanding Arguments

-May be an issue of reading for content instead of the argument structure.

-You may not have a strong enough grasp of argument types and previous questions to be able to anticipate potential answer choices, which is a key to performing well.

3. Answer Choice Traps:

-If you understand the arguments well, but still get answers wrong, you're likely being fooled by the way answers are presented. This is partially addressed by seeing and documenting the many ways LSAC tries to create tricky answers.

Each of these weaknesses require a different plan of attack. Continue doing what you're doing in terms of reviewing the curriculum and other material, but keep in mind that the purpose of most LSAT practice (that isn't learning brand new material) is to diagnose and fix the logical flaws you make while taking the test.

I think the definition of burnout is when you can no longer efficiently and productively learn from your current mode of practice. If you feel that you've hit this wall, then it's likely best to take a short break (maybe a couple days), take that time to reflect on how you can iterate on your practice techniques, and then pick up again. In particular, consider rebalancing your time between PT's and review. During my practice I found that a good balance was that 1 hour of PT/timed practice should equate to about 1-1.5 hours of analysis/review.

Getting over burnout and plateaus are difficult, and often require some retooling. But as Einstein said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Best of luck!

SUMMARY:

The LSAT is inherently unfair, so forcing everyone to take an unfair test does not make it a "level playing field," it just forces everyone to play on a slanted playing field that benefits some over others. Therefore, providing resources for disabled test-takers does not make the test less fair.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREMISE 1:

The LSAT, just like any other standardized test or metric, is not fair.

EVIDENCE FOR PREMISE 1:

The LSAT is not perfectly predictive of law school performance.

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/research-%28lsac-resources%29/tr-13-03.pdf

While this study shows that LSAT is more predictive of law school performance than GPA, and the correlation coefficient is relatively strong, the LSAT still leaves much to be desired in terms of predicting the "best" candidates.

EVIDENCE FOR PREMISE 1:

The LSAT is not highly correlated with BAR passage rates.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2308341&download=yes

This paper shows that the LSAT has a low correlation with BAR passage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREMISE 2:

Our understanding of what makes an ideal lawyer is flawed, and any test based on this flawed understanding is unlikely to be a good measure.

There are many skills important for many lawyers (i.e. public speaking, interpersonal skills that are required to sell work and persuade juries/clients, ability to apply logic across 100 page documents as opposed to half-page arguments, etc.) that are not tested by the LSAT. For example, the omission of such skills-testing unfairly advantages people who can sit still and concentrate on short arguments, and allows socially-stunted people who can't hold concentration for months/years (as opposed to hours) to slip through.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

Since the LSAT is inherently flawed in a way that unfairly advantages some people, providing resources for disabled test-takers doesn't make a fair and balanced test into an unfair test, it merely takes an already unfair test and rebalances it to help people who we know are being unfairly disadvantaged by the structure of the test. One could attempt to argue that the advantage given to disabled test-takers is far greater than the initial disadvantage caused by the structure of the test, but that is a slightly different discussion, and one that could be entertained and debated.