(Which is not to say that you couldn’t get into some law school somewhere and pass—University of American Samoa anyone?—just that having got your J.D., you might find it a challenge to pass the bar, and if you do you might find it a challenge to get a job that’s not handling bankruptcies for a storefront practice that advertises in the Pennysaver.)
1. Raw reading skill
2. Precision
3. Working memory. (Less of this now that LG are gone)
You've got #1 and #2 covered it sounds like, and presuming you're a programming you're likely also top 10% in working memory, bare minimum.
There's lots of specific stuff you can teach that helps bridge deficits in those three skills, but they're serious bottlenecks if you don't come into LSAT studying already having them.
A lot of people read poorly, aren't precise, and get easily distracted/have low working memory. Including college graduates.
A good memory can help on the reading section for sure. But a lot of students get tripped up trying to memorize all the details of long passages, when they should actually zoom out a little more so they can get the gist of the passage, and then use that bigger picture understanding to contextualize the details.
Most people have space for 5-7 items at once. So if you're on a the lower end, you need to put more work in specific strategies to optimize. If you have a higher end working memory you can just read and solve and not think of it.
My experience was from almost two decades ago and is atypical. I had decided to write it only just a month before the LSAT, and so I started prior tests only four weeks before the test date. In that time, I did 27 official practice tests. I also read a couple books and tried two unofficial tests.
I tracked my results in a spreadsheet and had a marginal improvement from 173.4 to 176 for the first five and last five tests. But, essentially all improvement happened after just ten tests.
In all practice tests, I did best in logic games, answering 98.1% correct, compared with 93.5% for logical reasoning and 91.4% for reading comprehension.
I was somewhat lucky and got 97/99 on the actual test, enough for a 180 that time (2 incorrect in logical reasoning). I had only got that twice in the practice tests with an expectation between 174 and 180 with a median of 176.
After each test I analyzed every incorrect answer as well as the ones I was less sure about. There were online forums where I could ask about, or see other people's analysis of the problem questions.
I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time.
This is how I study. I don't need to review my strong areas, I need to learn the weak ones. I can cruise through tech certs very quickly this way. People are always surprised when I can learn earn a cert after studying only 2-10 hours for it.