Long Post, but quality of review is very important vs burning through sections in these last weeks. Once you identify your weaknesses, DRILL those specific question/game/passage types. I would alternate between doing sections as a diagnostic tool and spend the rest of the day or the following day drilling.
If you think that "speed" is a problem, then you are mistaking mastery for speed. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. It’s much easier to “make up the time” to finish the section by drilling the question types that give you trouble versus mastering the material that you’re already great at. This is where Blind Review comes in, and putting a star next to every question that gave you trouble.
There’s usually a pattern in what you miss. I’ve broken down FOR LR, these question types require very similar thought processes, so I would recommend that you follow these guidelines to see what you’ll miss.
2a. Necessary Assumption, Sufficient Assumption, Flaw -There’s an assumption that’s required or sufficient that will make the argument true. Find the gap in the argument. Sufficient Assumption answers make the answer 100% true. NA answers address one of the gaps in the argument. If the NA answer is false, then the reasoning in the argument no longer works. There are many logical flaws. Most of them are commonly used bad assumptions.
2b. Strengthen, Weaken, Crux, Justify, Principle Support -Very similar to Assumption type questions. There’s an assumption in these questions. Your answer should strengthen or weaken the argument by addressing or exposing an assumption in the argument. Principle support questions are basically strengthen questions. Must be True. Must be False. Most strongly supported.
If you can’t identify a pattern, then drill all the question types.
For LR. Review why you're making those mistakes (i.e. what thought process is causing you to get them wrong), work on not making those mistakes. Become faster at the thought process via mastery of the same question types to get them correct.
For RC. -3-4 is ok. An analogy to RC is a long LR stimulus with multiple LR questions attached to it. Most of the questions are equivalent to LR MBT, MP, and Determine the Function/Describe questions. If you approach the questions like that, I think that you'll be more successful.
For LG. Is it a weird game (ex. virus, workpieces, offices) that throws off your LG score? Is it a specific type of Logic Game? Work on the fundamentals of logic games. There's a huge difference between solving a game incorrectly and running out of time but solving it correctly. Try to solve the Logic Games correctly and work on mastery to build speed. My advice is to not worry about weird games that show up on the LSAT. Most likely you'll simply have to come up with your own method if you encounter a weird game. Work on the fundamentals and save yourself some extra time if you encounter a weird game.
Also, have a strategy. Here were some of mine.
If there was a parallel reasoning or parallel flaw question, on the last two pages of LR, I would skip it and do it last. Those questions took me about 1-1.5 minutes to solve depending on where exactly the correct answer was. For me, this was usually the last 7-8 minutes, and I was doing the last 5 questions. I’d rather be super calm and 100% accurate and get 4 out of the last 5 correct by telling myself that I’m devoting 2 minutes max on the 4 non-parallel questions. Usually by doing this, I'm able to have around a minute for the parallel question, and I'm able to diagram the logic (if it's conditional logic) in the premise and narrow it down to 3 answer choices. If I'm lucky, I'll have found it, and I can skim the rest.
For LG. The first two games are usually easy. If there is a rule substitution/replacement question, spend a maximum of 1 minute on it, then move on. Try to get them done in 14-15 minutes. Look to see if there is a weird game in Game 3/4. Do the weird game last.
Do the non-weird game (s) with the most questions first in about 9 minutes. Use the rest of the time to do the last game. For weird games, focus on truly understanding the rules. Don't worry about missing an inference for weird games. Focus on how the rules interact, and just go.