At your score band I think LSAT demon's advice is most appropriate. Quick glance at 7Sage's score calculator tells me 153 is like -30. So -10 per scored section -- roughly 15/25. Instead of thinking about speed, maybe don't even try to finish the section. Going 18/20 on the questions you actually attempt and then blind guessing the last 5 questions would be an improvement. Give it a try on a few timed sections. You'll be able to tell if it's a useful approach.

Not sure how helpful this will be for you, but this is what works for me. With MC questions, I first just read it and try to intuitively get a sense of what they are arguing. And if there are a few lines that I'm deciding between, I will mentally begin each of them with 'therefore...' and test if it makes sense to me. And with ones like the question you mention, remove the 'however'. Words like this can muddy the water. Lastly, I shuffle around the premises in my head just to make sure it makes sense. So in your example, that would be:

-we must assess one another

-not all assessments are positive

-but being judgement is not just a negative assessment--it's a negative assessment w/o understanding

-THEREFORE, there is wisdom behind the idea of not being judgmental

Do you understand them when you review?

not transferring the data is very unfortunate

I think you've identified something that many others have missed.

I think you're way off on this one. We are talking about errors made on ledger entries. There were a certain number of ledger entries made over the course of this embezzlement. Let's say there were 1000 ledger entries. And let's keep your number: an accountant has a 10% chance of making an error. For each of those 1000 ledger entries, an accountant has a 10% chance of making an error. It could be one accountant making every ledger entry, it could be 1000 different accountants, it could be one accountant doing the first 50 and two other accountants alternating the next 950. That does not change the probability of an error occurring.

It helps me to kind of think of NA as a type of flaw question. An argument is made. I picture myself responding by saying "but you are assuming that _______." The thing that makes sense in that blank is the NA.

I find the actual content of this passage almost entirely unintelligible. How could you possibly demonstrate experimentally that someone is misdescribing their own thoughts? The only access you have to their thoughts is their own self report. The notion that they "misdescribe their own thoughts about a phenomena while nonetheless correctly describing those phenomena" is nonsense. Even the idea of "inferring" your own thoughts is impossible to understand. Do they mean opinion when they say thoughts? From the first-person perspective, we have direct access to something. It could be totally disconnected from reality, or we could draw the wrong implications from it, or we can misremember it, but we do not have to infer what it is. If I'm about to go on stage to give a speech, and I notice that I'm tense and sweaty and shaky, I can infer that I'm nervous. I cannot infer anything about what I was thinking in the previous moments. Yes, we can think things without noticing we are thinking them. But the only way we can ever actually tell what we are thinking is by directly observing our minds.

45 is not a possible score