October LSAT, 176 PT

Just want to hop on here and discuss some methods to get me to a 176 PT.

You've got to have a concrete approach to the questions. Here's how I break it down.

LG:
Do all the curriculum, follow all the advice. Here's my supplemental advice.

Must be true questions:
By nature of the question, the stimulus in the question HAS to lead you to a certain conclusion(s). Think about that when you are applying the additional premise to your game board or working off of the game board for those questions that have no additional premises. Look at every rule, and if you see that this specific question could lend itself to two game boards, quickly and carefully draw those out! You might, and likely will find, that X is in spot 4 in both boards, or that R is in group C in both boards, and there's your answer. You have to push through on these questions.

Could be true questions:
These, in my opinion, are harder, because the answers aren't always so easy to spot. Of course plug in any additional premise to your board and solve as normal, but if you're stuck thinking "I can't tell which direction to go", then start plugging in answers and see what will happen. It seems like a lot, but there are only 5 answers, the first one might work, the third one might work, or sometimes it's the last answer, but you've got to be able to decide that you need to shift out of "make your own inferences" mode into Test the answers mode. Knowing when to do this will precious time.

Can't be true/could be true except:
JY discusses this in many of the explanations, but it warrants my repetition. If a particular answer choice contains a game piece placement that seems to interact with many rules, i.e. it triggers a contrapositive and a not both rule, or it makes the game board have limited space for consecutive pieces, try this answer first. Not blindly jumping into answers and trying to sense the "pressure" from certain answers is a needed skill to get these harder questions right and right fast.

LR and RC:
I will be entirely honest, I did not go through the LR or RC curriculum on 7sage. I'm sure it is amazing curriculum; but I myself used a tutor when I was in the low 160s struggling on mostly LR and RC. But here is a drastic clue. You HAVE to have approaches to each question type, unless your last name is Kent and your girlfriend is Lois Lane. Knowing how to approach a flaw or an NA or a PSA is crucial. It creates structure to your test taking experience, and in theory, should result in the correct answer each time. Don't just like generically think "ok something has to be wrong here" when a flaw question is raised. Rather, realize its a flaw question, and proceed down a list of steps. Personally, I have this approach to flaws. I see that it's a flaw, and I know that I can predict the obvious answer, in which case I find the answer that exactly matches my thoughts and move on, or I summate the argument. By summate, I mean, "ok, its saying that because of this and this, this happens". People don't realize the power of what they're reading. The author is saying that because of x y and z premises, the conclusion is supported. But is it really?

All in all, that's just an example of an approach, but you need to have an approach to question types in LR. For RC, I'll say this, if the question references a certain line or idea, refer back to that line, but read the context above it first. Also, don't just stop at the end of the referenced material. If the mentioned idea/topic continues for the next few sentences. Glance back over that. The hard questions have their answers lying in the context of their references. One might then ask, "well aren't I wasting time??". Here's the answer. If you've read carefully before hand, then no. You'll have gone through the other questions easily because you took your time to understand the passage, and making certain that you comprehend the referenced stimulus in a question should not put you at a disadvantage for that passage as a whole.

But the emphasis is on the caveat. "As long as you've read carefully". Take the time, and I mean take the time. After each paragraph, I basically go through each idea I just read in those chunk of lines. Characters, viewpoints, if they disagree with someone or something, if there are any lists (there are three theories about evolution, x, y and z). Sometimes I spend 3.5 minutes reading, if it's a comparative section with two passages, I've spent 5 minutes. But I had time remaining at the end of the RC section overall.