I can already tell this next unit is going to give me a lot of grief T>T

Not sure if this helps anyone, but the way I broke down the argument to help me understand it in my WAJ was like this:

Premise 1 (Major Premise/Sub Conclusion): Love = feeling → promise makes no sense

Why P1? Because of,

Premise 2: Feelings → not controllable

Premise 3: Not controllable → promise makes no sense

Chain: Feelings → promise makes no sense (VALID and aligns with Premise 1)

Therefore, Love ≠ Feeling, or "Love should not be interpreted as feelings."

But the premises do not establish when one should not interpret a word in a particular way. The premises only establish that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings makes no sense. So to get from the premise to the conclusion, what’s missing is the principle that if an interpretation makes no sense, one should not use that interpretation.

Please let me know if I made a mistake since I'm learning just as everyone else is!

Changed my answer choice at the last minute

@JT123456 Hi, I'm super late, but I had the same exact question. The way I understood it was that the first sentence establishes that listing it would be easier to limit, but the second sentence actually describes that people were actually doing it. If that makes sense lol?