Parallel questions have a highly regimented theory and approach – even if your core logical intuitions are very strong, following a routine process specifically built around the LSAT’s unique patterns will dramatically reduce the time and mental energy required to identify the correct answer. So review these lessons. They’re important.

In short, though, our approach will be to develop an abstract model of the stimulus’ argument, preserving the structure but not the subject matter, then take a shallow dip into the answer choices looking for structural mismatches. Usually that suffices to identify the correct answer, but sometimes we’ll need a deep dive to distinguish between the (usually just two) answer choices that remain after our shallow dip.

There’s lots of moving pieces in this argument. It’s a bit like a sciencey RC passage, where there’s a lot of ↑ and ↓ and good and bad to track. And just like in RC, it’ll be super important to actually track it all in this question, tedious though it might be. In my opinion, the ideal approach to this question involves, at minimum, a few written notes to nail down the stimulus’ narrative. We can also borrow the RC technique of heightening the drama here – the goodness and badness of concepts gets a lot easier to track when you let the content hit you in the feely feels.

So take time up front to build your high-drama template for the stimulus, then evaluate each answer choice by plugging concepts into the template, trying to match the drama. I’ll walk you through a high-drama reading first, then give another summary focused on structure, then finally a template preserving the drama. Here’s the high-drama reading:

Malaria will go ↑ (bad!) if global warming continues or pesticides don’t go ↑. But if pesticides do go ↑ (which would be good…), that would cause more global warming (oh no! that would be bad!). So malaria is gonna go ↑ (bad!).

Now the summary focused on structure:

There’s a bad thing we’re hoping to prevent (Malaria↑). Either of two triggers would suffice to make the bad thing happen (Global Warming or /Pesticides↑). But oh no! If we try to block one of the triggers (Pesticides↑), that’ll activate the other trigger (Global Warming). So the bad thing is gonna happen for sure (Malaria↑).

Now the template into which we’ll plug each answer choice:

Bad Thing: exists
Two Triggers: each suffices to make the bad thing happen
But Oh No!: blocking one trigger activates the other
Conclusion: bad thing is gonna happen for sure