Initially I read this problem, and it just felt riddled with hidden possibilities - it felt debilitating based on the mental energy required to process it. However, after reading the choices E stood out as most reasonable...but I wasn't sure.

So in blind review I literally drew out a diagram of a classroom and mapped the characteristics to each section of the class. Then it became clear. That just takes too long.

What's proposed here is enticing, being able to predict based on standard molds...I'm eager to see where this goes. Excited to get started!

There was no lawgic in the video explanation, so I thought I'd give it a try. Notably - I got this wrong on both the initial attempt and blind review - so I tried again when prompted by the video. I aimed to focus on identifying the logical structure that would definitively select D as the answer choice.

After noting the video suggested there was a subconclusion that is used to support the main conclusion - I unearthed this as the subconclusion in lawgic:

"If 'love' here refers to a feeling" = LRF

"then this promise makes no sense" = PNS

LRF > PNS

There are subcomponents in this chain, but I figured I could ignore those.

The conclusion:

"Thus, no one...should take 'love' in this context to be referring to feelings" = /LRF

So in lawgic:

LRF > PNS

??

----------------

/LRF

To connect them, you would need something that would force the conclusion of /LRF. The contrapositive works here:

/PNS > /LRF

/PNS = Promises should make sense ~ (D) Promises should not be interpreted in such a way that they make no sense

In this way, (D) forces /LRF, which is the conclusion.

I think this works? However...in an effort to further deepen my foundation here - let's try this against other answer choices.

(A) - None is a Group 4 indicator, negate necessary.

Feelings (F) > / Control (C)

C > /F

If we expand out the subconclusion:

LRF > PNS

LRF (>) F > /C > No Sense (NS)

Technically, this doesn't force anything related to the conclusion - it only restates something we already know. Incorrect.

(B) - This answer choice seems to state C (control), in the context of making a promise.

From our lawgic diagram, we can see that C only forces /F. Where if we have control, then it does not refer to feelings. Technically correct, so B naturally turns up as a potentially correct answer.

However, as we see in the video explanation, this has nothing to do with lawgic - for it has everything to do with how the stimulus describes the conclusion. This is particularly evil, but hey, words are tricky, huh?

As the video states, it's about how the AC is presented, even if the underlying lawgic may support this AC. Making promises vs. interpreting promises. Two different things, and frankly, the conclusion states "take 'love' in this context", heavily implies the act of interpreting the promise, not the act of making the promise.

This minute separation is devious, but fair play.

(C) - Sure, this could be true, but also, it doesn't serve any purpose in forcing the conclusion.

(E) - Keeping promises has no relevance to this question.

This is a level 5 for a reason, we can see it here - even with solid lawgic and intuition - there are sleight of word methods that LSAT writers can use to misdirect. I hope sharing this experience for me was helpful to someone. 

My mind is naturally lazy and tries to make sense of these stimuli by "filling in the blanks" with experience.

Really...this feels like training the mind's executive control to not take the shortcuts - to see something as it is not what one's mind finds it easy to see.

love this, going to review it frequently to ground myself

imagine tackling the LSAT blind - those LSAT writers would have a field day with you...

q4 - wouldn't the "that" in "in that" refer to dealings?

Are concessions most effective when used against unreasonable counter arguments? For example, a counter argument based on unpalatable food challenging access to a well-balanced diet is not relevant, which weakens it's reasonableness - which would correlate with a more effective concession...or one that the speaker may be more willing to give.

If instead the concession was based on a counter argument of price, this would hold weaker effectiveness because the counter argument of price is more reasonable comparatively to unpalatability of the food as a counter to the premise of access to a well-balanced diet.

All this to say, are concessions also subject to a relative strength based on the reasonableness of the counter argument point used in the concession? Concessions aren't a full-proof guard against a counterargument...it's strength is based on the reasonableness of the counter argument. If that even makes sense...

Anyways, to dig myself out of that rabbit hole...I suppose for purposes of the LSAT, identification of different parts of the stimulus are the important lesson here, not so much the practical application of concessions in an argument broader than presented in a scoped stimulus, quesiton, and answer choices.