Whoever recommended doing the shallow dip with the logical strength of the conclusion in the answer choices several lessons back is brilliant. it's been much easier than trying the shallow dip with the premises, and it's cutting my times in half.
First analyzing whether the conclusions match, ignoring everything else, is a great way to eliminate answer choices quickly. In this case, D was the only answer choice that had a matching conclusion structure.
@ctrue22 B also said "only if" so I think it was just lucky! I've done that before and picked language that was most similar to the stimulus and been incorrect. I think LSAT writers like to try and trick you with that.
Something that has truly helped me with Parallel questions is genuinely abstractly piecing out the framework of the stimulus. I've been getting all of the study questions correct and under time by following this method. It might not be completely accurate, but it does help seriously cut down on time if you do choose to attempt Parallel questions on the actual LSAT. Here is the methodology I follow using this question as an example:
1) The first sentence in the stimulus is just a straight up statement (not a conditional, not a causal claim). All it tells us is "A is planning on doing B." With this, you can automatically eliminate the first two answer choices quickly. Answer A says, "A will do B unless C happens." Answer B says, "A will do B only if C happens." Answer C includes two different subjects and in my mind I just cut this out as the stimulus is only talking about one main subject - trade union members. Answer E is also debating between two options, "A is either offered in B or C" which is wrong. Answer choice D is the only answer that started out with a straight up statement
2) I use this method throughout the entirety of reviewing answer choices. If the mistake doesn't happen at the first sentence, it is bound to happen somewhere in the answer choice. Keep a birds-eye view on the stimulus format without deep diving into the specifics
To gain speed on parallel questions: the logical strength of the correct answer choice should match the logical strength of the stim's conclusion. So POE by hunting for the conclusion first and diagram the one that stood out to you (one that matches original conclusion's LS).
Would the assumption in the stimulus, mentioned in answer choice (D), be an example of sufficiency-necessity confusion? It seems like an unwarranted assumption. A tutor from 7Sage told me that ALL flaws would be reflected in the analogous answer so I was surprised by this
@Rena12345 This specific question is asking for a parallel argument, but not a parallel flaw argument. So there isn't a sufficiency-necessity confusion.
we slowly improving on timing, got it in 1:57. no need for diagraming, if any of you are reading this what I usally do is read it as a then b if not b then a or bla bla bla... i dont even pay attention to what the texts says i simply put it into lawgic in my head. another way to do this is replace the AC with the stims langauge as JT says. for this one I read D as if they were going on strike (he will win) he will only win if he gets water and they havwnt done that ( they will only strike if agree and they dont) so he will win (so they will strike)
OK I don't know if I should be admitting this but I've been simply reading the conclusion of the argument and then looking at the conclusion in the answers and if they have similar language I've been selecting that one and it seems to be working. Has anyone else been noticing this pattern?
I've been finding this question type much less torturous than a lot of the previous ones because you can mostly rely on wording and semantics. For this problem, you can see that the conclusion is probabilistic rather than definitive ("unlikely/likely" rather than "will/must") which allows you to get rid of all answer choices except D. I've noticed a lot of wrong answer choices either conflate quantifiers (such as most vs. all) in one or more places, introduce one too many subjects to be relevantly similar to the stimulus, or they mess up the conclusion. So at least for me it's basically a big game of pin the tail on the donkey. Although in the real world you probably would not want to rely on heuristics to this extent.
The next question which is about taxation (PT133 S3 Q25) is a very good example of how POE can help with this question type so I'll quickly run through my thought process for it in few words:
A) "to correspond directly to" vs. "in proportion to" in first sentence. Good. "Reliable" vs. "objective" in second sentence with the same flow. Great. And in both cases, the third sentence makes a proportional conclusion based on context in the first sentence and reasoning in the second. Lovely.
B) Why "complete autonomy"? The conclusion is about a proportion, it's not absolute. [LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]
C) "Many government programs" ... uhh, how many? And for how many "large corporations"? And why do we care?
D) Something about the second sentence feels off. The answer choice is just trying to go A -> B -> C in a very textbook way, but the stim is using the second sentence to better qualify the first.
E) There's no mediating clause. It's just one premise. Very different
when the format of the logic of the argument is so convoluted like this, skip to the conclusion. Once you understand the format and quantifiers in the conclusion (most, any, etc.), scan the ACs and find the conclusion that matches. BH
Damn, that's 4 in a row correct just by counting the "most/more/only/all" in the stimuli and matching it with the answer. It feels like a cheat code or maybe I'm just getting lucky
Someone could probably get this right in 30-40 seconds if they realized they only need to look for a conclusion with a probability (and there's only one AC with a probabilistic conclusion).
"If someone realized they need to look for the one, single, only answer choice with a probabilistic conclusion, that someone could probably get this question right in 30-40 seconds" :)
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
67 comments
yayay got it right!!!:)
Whoever recommended doing the shallow dip with the logical strength of the conclusion in the answer choices several lessons back is brilliant. it's been much easier than trying the shallow dip with the premises, and it's cutting my times in half.
To the person who suggested the highlighting method: thank you. Game changer.
@evriv02 can you explain how to do the highlight method please
First analyzing whether the conclusions match, ignoring everything else, is a great way to eliminate answer choices quickly. In this case, D was the only answer choice that had a matching conclusion structure.
@epayne17 I got the next question correct because of this tip - thanks!
NOOO I CHANGED IT
I feel like I am going crazy
I chose D because it was the only one that said, "only if". Is that even a reason it's correct? Or did I just get lucky? #help
@ctrue22 B also said "only if" so I think it was just lucky! I've done that before and picked language that was most similar to the stimulus and been incorrect. I think LSAT writers like to try and trick you with that.
Something that has truly helped me with Parallel questions is genuinely abstractly piecing out the framework of the stimulus. I've been getting all of the study questions correct and under time by following this method. It might not be completely accurate, but it does help seriously cut down on time if you do choose to attempt Parallel questions on the actual LSAT. Here is the methodology I follow using this question as an example:
1) The first sentence in the stimulus is just a straight up statement (not a conditional, not a causal claim). All it tells us is "A is planning on doing B." With this, you can automatically eliminate the first two answer choices quickly. Answer A says, "A will do B unless C happens." Answer B says, "A will do B only if C happens." Answer C includes two different subjects and in my mind I just cut this out as the stimulus is only talking about one main subject - trade union members. Answer E is also debating between two options, "A is either offered in B or C" which is wrong. Answer choice D is the only answer that started out with a straight up statement
2) I use this method throughout the entirety of reviewing answer choices. If the mistake doesn't happen at the first sentence, it is bound to happen somewhere in the answer choice. Keep a birds-eye view on the stimulus format without deep diving into the specifics
To gain speed on parallel questions: the logical strength of the correct answer choice should match the logical strength of the stim's conclusion. So POE by hunting for the conclusion first and diagram the one that stood out to you (one that matches original conclusion's LS).
Stim Logical Strength: unlikely, likely
Correct Answer LS: probable
getting this correct in about 1:20 is crazy!
almost got me- until i realized D was the only one discussing the past
I got this correct by looking at the conclusion in the stimulus and matching it to conclusions of the answer choices.
Would the assumption in the stimulus, mentioned in answer choice (D), be an example of sufficiency-necessity confusion? It seems like an unwarranted assumption. A tutor from 7Sage told me that ALL flaws would be reflected in the analogous answer so I was surprised by this
@Rena12345 This specific question is asking for a parallel argument, but not a parallel flaw argument. So there isn't a sufficiency-necessity confusion.
did this one pretty fast and didn't even read D.
skimmed the stim and grasped onto the conclusion saying "likely," so I knew the conclusion couldn't be definitive.
A B and E all had conclusions that said "will" or "will not" so I immediately got rid of them.
C had no temporal language, so it couldn't be parallel to D.
and that was it!
@nicolesteinberg133 I did exactly this!
Bit by bit im doing better :,)
we slowly improving on timing, got it in 1:57. no need for diagraming, if any of you are reading this what I usally do is read it as a then b if not b then a or bla bla bla... i dont even pay attention to what the texts says i simply put it into lawgic in my head. another way to do this is replace the AC with the stims langauge as JT says. for this one I read D as if they were going on strike (he will win) he will only win if he gets water and they havwnt done that ( they will only strike if agree and they dont) so he will win (so they will strike)
Took me 2 and half minutes but I got it right
OK I don't know if I should be admitting this but I've been simply reading the conclusion of the argument and then looking at the conclusion in the answers and if they have similar language I've been selecting that one and it seems to be working. Has anyone else been noticing this pattern?
how do you compare? are you comparing terms like "unless" or "most"? I'd like to know your thought process a little more pls
I've been finding this question type much less torturous than a lot of the previous ones because you can mostly rely on wording and semantics. For this problem, you can see that the conclusion is probabilistic rather than definitive ("unlikely/likely" rather than "will/must") which allows you to get rid of all answer choices except D. I've noticed a lot of wrong answer choices either conflate quantifiers (such as most vs. all) in one or more places, introduce one too many subjects to be relevantly similar to the stimulus, or they mess up the conclusion. So at least for me it's basically a big game of pin the tail on the donkey. Although in the real world you probably would not want to rely on heuristics to this extent.
The next question which is about taxation (PT133 S3 Q25) is a very good example of how POE can help with this question type so I'll quickly run through my thought process for it in few words:
A) "to correspond directly to" vs. "in proportion to" in first sentence. Good. "Reliable" vs. "objective" in second sentence with the same flow. Great. And in both cases, the third sentence makes a proportional conclusion based on context in the first sentence and reasoning in the second. Lovely.
B) Why "complete autonomy"? The conclusion is about a proportion, it's not absolute. [LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]
C) "Many government programs" ... uhh, how many? And for how many "large corporations"? And why do we care?
D) Something about the second sentence feels off. The answer choice is just trying to go A -> B -> C in a very textbook way, but the stim is using the second sentence to better qualify the first.
E) There's no mediating clause. It's just one premise. Very different
"Your present performance isn't necessarily representative of your future performance. People improve."
Thanks JY!
when the format of the logic of the argument is so convoluted like this, skip to the conclusion. Once you understand the format and quantifiers in the conclusion (most, any, etc.), scan the ACs and find the conclusion that matches. BH
Thank you Dylan
almost at target time by 10 seconds! is it too early to name these my favorite? i really liked pseudo sufficient assumption as well
Damn, that's 4 in a row correct just by counting the "most/more/only/all" in the stimuli and matching it with the answer. It feels like a cheat code or maybe I'm just getting lucky
I'd work on another more all-inclusive strategy as a backup plan if this strategy can't be done.
#Help If a question is flawed by analogy, does the answer need to be as well? Similarly, with other flaws as well?
yes, any flaw the stimulus exhibits needs to be replicated by the answer
Someone could probably get this right in 30-40 seconds if they realized they only need to look for a conclusion with a probability (and there's only one AC with a probabilistic conclusion).
If or only if??? lol
"If someone realized they need to look for the one, single, only answer choice with a probabilistic conclusion, that someone could probably get this question right in 30-40 seconds" :)
This one was easy, I just scanned all the conclusions for the one that has a reference to a past event affecting the likelihood of a future one.