Counterbalancing Confidence Errors

ssmith9664

This is a question mostly geared towards Blind Review

So my highest PT is a 155 and my highest Blind Review is a 165. I almost always fix a ton of my issues on LG because I think it's the simplest to improve. Nevertheless, I don't seem to really improve a lot on other sections. I've improved a lot on LR on my LSAT journey, but RC has been probably the toughest challenge. I think it's a mix of me not circling questions for blind review, and then if I circle a lot of questions I think to myself "well this logic is just fine, keep the answer".

There's obviously many factors in considering what kind of LR/RC question it is, but more often than not I just can't seem to contradict my logic either in the moment when i'm taking the test or when i'm looking at review. What would be a good method for counterbalancing complete confidence in something vs being overtly suspicious that the answer is wrong? I know from the CC one way of figuring out if NA questions are suspect is by negating them and seeing if it wrecks the argument, do similar methods exist for other frequent LR/RC questions?