I was in the exact same boat as you on LR for the longest time, missing 7-12 per section. Only recently have I steadily been able to answer 20+ correctly on each section under timed conditions. I can't say what works for me works for everyone (that'd be a flaw, right?), but for me it was a combination of learning to apply a critical and active reading mindset to EVERY question, thoroughly reviewing all misses to the point of overkill, and then doing questions under timed conditions.

1) Critical, Active Reading - I know, for the LSAT it should be a given right? But it is a skill, and I had to practice it. The LSAT requires both reading for detail and for broad comprehension. So I practiced reading every question super critically. It's easy to read a main point or main conclusion question and then assume an easy stimulus and answer are on the way. But the LSAT authors know this, and they will try to trip you up on very tricky trap answers, even if the flaw is apparent. So read every question assuming it's going to be the hardest question you've ever read. When you're doing untimed practice or reviewing misses, literally speak out loud to yourself explaining your thought process. This helped me a lot to get a solid conceptual understanding of all the different questions types. After doing it for about 200 questions.

2) Reviewing Misses - This is essential, possibly the most essential. My misses fall into two categories. One, I made a stupid mistake. I reduced these misses when I started reading every question like my life depended on it, ie. super critical reading. Second, I had no clue of the flaw or argument due to convoluted language, subtle assumptions, or whatever. Really deconstructing the stimuli was key for me. On these types of misses I break each argument into premise, conclusion (obv), then further break it down further so I know the function of each phrase or even word. After finally finding out exactly why I got the question wrong, I write a parallel argument and answer that matches exactly the actual LSAT question and answer. This has helped me tremendously. It's allowed me to get a real deep understanding of the flaw and argument types, because they really do repeat themselves. And if still didn't get it, I do over again. Sometimes I do it over again anyway. Understanding the LSAT is not something I have found I can overkill.

3) Timed Questions - Another given, but essential. I find that if you're reading while very focused and very critical, possess a deep understanding of the question and flaw types gained through study, and are able to operate efficiently and decisively under timed conditions, you are gonna be just fine.

So it just takes practice and time. In my case, it took a lot if it. And it it's super frustrating. But with enough study you WILL get better. If I can, you can trust me. For me, after enough review it sorta just clicked! The questions got easier to read, understand, and answer correctly. I had no reason to think LR would suddenly make sense, but all of a sudden it did! So don't give up! Even if it feels like you're not progressing at all, keep at it and you will for sure! Good Luck!

I sadly incorrectly choose D as well. Here's why, and thus how I was wrong.

The argument simplified says...

P1: Interpretations of a work primarily impose meaning on a work rather than discovering meaning in it (So what Moby Dick means to the critic rather than what it meant to Melville).

P2: So, interpretations do not NEED to consider the writer's intentions.

C: Thus, any interpretation tells more about the critic than the writer.

Reading it while PT'ing, I came away with the assumption that a critic's interpretation of the work must reveal something about that critic. I had the "blocking" and "bridging" concepts in my mind when I went into the answer choices...

A) Not necessary, maybe there are or maybe there are not criteria to distinguish validity between different interpretations. Either way, this does not need to be true in order for the conclusion to be reached.

B) Correct. Let's negate it. What if an interpretation did not reflect any facts about the critic? Then how could it tell more about the critic than the writer? It couldn't.

C) Weakens the argument, so therefore cannot be correct. Maybe they are relevant? The critic's interpretation can still be

D) Not necessary. Maybe the true intentions of a writer can be known to a critic? The critic still does not NEED to consider the writer's intention, because interpretations are about assigning meaning rather than discovering it.

I think the sufficient assumptionish aspects of this question got me. My thinking was if a critic cannot discern the intentions of a writer's work, then obviously they do not need to discover this meaning. And if they cannot discover it, then their interpretation will tell more about themselves than about the writer. But we don't need to make the argument 100% valid, we only need to find an assumption made by the argument as it stands. A necessary one.

E) Not necessary. Let's say a critic's interpretation takes into account the writer's history. That does not mean the interpretation does not tell more about the critic than the writer.