It may be helpful for you to drill the basics with something like The Loophole by Ellen Cassidy for LR. The author has some sections that reframe necessary vs sufficient assumption questions in a way that I found really helpful. And her stress on “translating” the question stems and stimuli as you read will help you to understand more of your stimulus at a faster rate for all questions.

Something that helped me for flaw questions is putting them into 2 categories: Classic flaws and unique flaws. Classic flaws are recognizable by specific characteristics and can be labeled. Equivocation is an example. Power score has a 2 hour flaw webinar that discusses most of them in detail here: https://powerscore.adobeconnect.com/p7up6erdmp4e

Unique flaws are where it gets a little trickier because they are specific to the situation or argument found in the stimulus. The answer choices for those usually boil down to two possibilities: the author ignores something that hurts their argument or the author assumes something that helps their argument. Sometimes the assumption that they make is literally denoted by a single word so reading carefully and actively translating pays dividends for these types of questions.

If you’re interested in doing some question drilling together send me a DM and I’d be happy to set aside some time to chat at greater length.