I have taught the LSAT for over seven years - the initial test is one jsut to give you an idea of the hell you are about to face. The purpose of the test is really to scare you into studying for it hardcore.
These are law students. 99% are already going to take the test seriously. They're taking a practice test precisely because they take the test seriously. They don't need to waste three hours of their time for nothing more than to be scared into studying.
If you have never seen the LSAT before and you sit down cold and take it, it is really not that helpful to go through the test and figure out what you have done wrong as you have NO idea of any solution strategies at that point. Once you begin preparation then you must absolutely go through the test and understand what you have done wrong. I have taught for three of the major prep companies and I can tell you that a review is not in order for the "cold test".
So you shouldn't start learning about the test until you've started learning about the test?? I disagree.
And sorry, but review is not all about "solution strategies" as if beating the test was all about using some prep company's "tricks." The initial review is about self-awareness and getting a general idea of one's own strengths and weaknesses right off the bat.
It would be useful to know, for instance, that the jumbled technique you used for the third logic game didn't work well or that answering RC questions without going back to the passage was a bad idea. If you just take your 145 or whatever from the first practice test and fail to explore it further, you're giving up a whole lot of the payoff for spending 3+ hours taking the stupid test.