I definitely understand your reservations and the beast that the LSAT is. However, not everyone is geared for self-study -- especially coupled with the purposeful confusion techniques that the LSAT writers use. You might consider a tutor if you haven't.

I'm not sure how similar LSAT studying is to actual legal work. I'm sure there's some overlap in verbosity and poorly-written case summaries and the like but overall I would hesitate to think that the daily LSAT studying is perfectly or even semi-perfectly parallel with law school studying and subsequent legal work. But really, I'm talking out of my ass, so if there's a practicing lawyer or current law student that wishes to correct me, then be my guest.

If your dream is to go to law school, then you'll make it work. LSAT is a means to an end and is a very difficult test. I've scored anywhere from 145-174 and can say I started at almost zero when I began studying. I didn't know what the fuck an argument was or how to attack conclusion/premise relationships. Sometimes you just have to change your approach. A tutor could possibly help you identify gaps in your understanding, and for all we know, it could be a few simple tweaks.

Also, give yourself a break and be kind to yourself. Working a full-time job while studying for this shit sucks. If you haven't, try altering you study schedule to different times of the day. Study when you feel the most "fresh" and don't force it.

Best of luck and hang in there.

Overall, I think questions like these should be approached (from JY's level or whoever is explaining it) from a test perspective. We don't have 8 minutes to spend doing these questions. It'd be more helpful (to me, not sure how others feel) if JY would do one take from the perspective of being in a live test and THEN explain it as if it were a BR session.