I understand you. I am in the same boat as you are, so my advice might not be the best one out there. However, somebody made me realize not long ago that there was one stupid thing holding me back, and it was believing that I knew and that I understood everything, and I fear that you might be in the same place that I used to be.

Even though I haven't broken the 160s, something that has helped me improve was recognizing that I do not know the content. I don't understand the stimulus when I read it, or the question stem, or the assumptions being made, or the actual flaw; I don't know the strategies, and if I know them, I apply them poorly or even use them when they're not required; I don't know the logic behind the argument, I can't see the logical gaps or the logical jumps, I mistranslate some sentences, I can't locate the premise or the conclusion, and if I do I fail to establish an appropriate connection, sometimes I'm just oblivious to everything. And to be fair, not knowing those things is okay. What's not okay is not knowing those things but telling yourself that you do. That's probably what's hampering your progress. At least it did to me.

That mentality prevented me from seeking other sources, from honing my abilities, even from blind reviewing correctly. I wouldn't tell you to go back to the core curriculum (although maybe you should, this is something I myself have been procrastinating), but I would recommend you to get rid of those thoughts. Once you know that you didn't understand something, and you're honest with yourself, you will feel more motivated to try really hard to understand it.

That's another tip, whenever you answer something incorrectly, don't just fix it during blind review. That's easy, since you already got rid of the most attractive trap answer. Instead, focus on understanding why the wrong answer is wrong and why the right answer is right. Most experts don't tell you this because it sounds fancy: it really makes the difference. And don't let that question go until you make the connection yourself. Don't even see the explanation before you've made the connection yourself. And after you've answered it (whether correctly or incorrectly) then go watch the explanation. Also try to explain to yourself how you got to this or that answer. What steps did you take? Where did you go wrong? What exactly did you need to do in order to make it right? It is hard work. Sometimes I'm just as frustrated. But you will persevere.

@JoelKeenan Wait, I'm lost. Where do you get that answer choice D says "If you make a promise, it must make sense"? If anything, the right way to translate answer choice D would be "If it makes no sense, then promises should not be interpreted in such a way". Let's say that, for the sake of the argument, you find the contrapositive in that. Fine. But answer choice D is still talking about interpretations rather than making promises, so I don't understand where you get that interpreting a promise means to make a promise. You're equating two terms that shouldn't be equated.

But also, if you try to link the premises that you're giving me, I can't find the right way to do it. For example, you say that the main premise is "If a promise makes sense, then love is not a feeling". And then you tell me that the conclusion is "If you make a promise, then love is not a feeling". And then the missing premise is hidden in answer choice D, which after applying the contrapositive, it says "If you interpret promises it in such a way, then they make sense". And I'm going to be fair and say that interpreting a promise is the same thing as making it. In which case, the hidden premise now says "if you make a promise, then it makes sense", right? Well, to me that's still not right, because the idea of "making sense" must go in the sufficient assumption place ("if it makes sense, then you can make a promise"),otherwise you wouldn't be able to link both ideas. But sadly, my translation is not giving me the answer that I'm looking for.

My translation might be wrong, I would never assume the opposite. But I feel pretty confident about it.

The argument form is very simple. If love is a feeling (A), then Promise makes no sense (/B).

The conclusion negates the sufficient condition by claiming that no one should see love as a feeling (/A). By doing this, the argument completely falls apart. There's nothing triggering the necessary condition, which means that the claim just... stays there, floating around.

Therefore, the right answer choice is simply Promise makes no sense (/B).

Hi! I'm not an expert, but what helps me is to identify the premises and the conclusion, and then I try to simplify everything as best as I can.

So, for example, if a premise says "Some dogs like swimming in the pool", I just focus on the quantifier "some" and the fact that the statement is positive. If there's an answer choice that has "most", "none", "all", etc., I would immediately eliminate them because I'm looking for a "some" statement. Or if an answer choice says "some people don't like carrots", I will also eliminate it because the original argument does not contain a negation.

But even more importantly is to make sure that the conclusions match. So if the conclusion says "Therefore, some dogs are good swimmers", then again, I need to make sure that my conclusion has "Some" in it, and that it doesn't contain a negation.

If you want to be faster at this, you will first eliminate all the answer choices that have different conclusions to the one that you're looking for, and then you can read the premises of the ones that are left. Also, if the argument is way too complicated to keep this in mind, then I just encapsulate some ideas into A, B, or C statements. For example, let's say I have this argument: "I am smart, all smart people score 170+ on the LSAT. Therefore, I will score 170+ on the LSAT" If it's too hard for you to keep these ideas in mind, I would just say "All A's are B. A. therefore, B" or whatever it is. If you do this, you're going to be able to see the argument's form. So you would need an answer that says "All As are B; A; So, B". I don't know if that makes sense.