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
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?
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).
Some questions have dead giveaways in premises/conclusion. "Based on past experience" in the stimulus conclusion tells you everything you need to know looking for the right answer, that it is going to be referencing events in the past to predict a likewise conclusion for the present.
Im not sure if this is a good method but I was able to get the answer correct and narrow answer choices quickly by matching the word strength the journalist used "strike is likely" to Ds "probable lopez will win"
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!
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.
57 comments
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
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!
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?
"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
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
#Help If a question is flawed by analogy, does the answer need to be as well? Similarly, with other flaws as well?
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).
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.
Some questions have dead giveaways in premises/conclusion. "Based on past experience" in the stimulus conclusion tells you everything you need to know looking for the right answer, that it is going to be referencing events in the past to predict a likewise conclusion for the present.
Im not sure if this is a good method but I was able to get the answer correct and narrow answer choices quickly by matching the word strength the journalist used "strike is likely" to Ds "probable lopez will win"
once again switched from the answer to a trap last second i hate it here
AC "D" is the only AC with probability language matching the conclusion I am a god so hurry up with my damn croissant
I picked AC (D) because it was the only answer with a matching conclusion
so close to the goal time every time its like less than 15 seconds too slow hopefully I get faster or can make it up elsewhere.
59 seconds still HIM