I agree with you completely! Practice exams remind me of studying for the LSAT, once you look at the answer, it's an automatic "Duh! That's easy!" However, I think law exams are so much better because you have more flexibility, as long as you are analytical and methodical. In fact, they are a bit fun as we get to be the Judge.
For contracts, I am going to just move down like this:
Decide if an offer has been made and where (UCC, Restatement, common law to Facts) ---> Determine whether offer is irrevocable ---> Was the offer accepted (UCC, Restatement, Common law to Facts) ---> If so, what are the terms (UCC, Restatement, Common Law to Facts)... The same for Consideration, P.E., et al.
There is so much information, so many rules, that you just have to take it one at a time and not get overwhelmed.
Perhaps you have a better method. My problem right now is not with the material or rules, it's with the organization and making it a "nice" looking, lawyer-like answer. Also, I have noticed my number one mistake is not reading in-between the lines, the minute facts that is, such as the date, or the jurisdiction, the exact wording in a statute... however, I feel that if you know your weaknesses, you will watch out for them on the exam. Thus, it's such a positive to reveal your weaknesses and be frustrated by them, that way you can correct them.