Self-study
Support If you study history, then you will appreciate the vast differences among past civilizations, and Support you will appreciate these differences provided that you reflect on your own civilization. ██████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ █████████████
Objective: Parallel Flaw Questions
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 all Parallel questions, we develop an abstract model of the stimulus’ argument, preserving the structure but not the subject matter. We treat Parallel Flaw questions much the same, just with a greater emphasis on distilling the flaw.
We’ll then take a shallow dip into the answer choices looking for structural mismatches. Typically 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.
Use Formal Logic
If thinking about this question in English is easier for you than using formal logic, you need more practice gaining fluency in formal logic. Think of English and formal logic as two closely-related tools, like a hand screwdriver and a power screwdriver. While it’s true that any job you can complete with one you could also complete with the other, they each have niche uses in which they excel. If you find yourself tackling a line of 100 wood screws with a hand screwdriver, you need to get better with the power screwdriver.
Parsing The Language; Distilling The Flaw
This question almost feels like a one-move wonder testing whether you know how to parse the phrase “
So when I say…
I’m going to the concert provided my paycheck comes in time.
I mean…
If [my paycheck coming on time] has been gifted unto me as a thing that is true in the world, then I’m going to the concert.
So yeah, “provided” is a sufficient condition indicator. 🌈the more you know⭐️
But there’s an interesting test-strategy point to make here, because diagramming the “provided that” clause backward results in a valid argument. We’re in a Parallel Flaw question! Even if you’re not sure how the phrase operates, you do have the information required to work it out.
Anywho, here’s the logic:
Premise 1: Study History → Appreciate Diffs
Premise 2: Reflect → Appreciate Diffs
________
Conclusion: Study History → Reflect
This argument commits the common fallacy of confusing sufficiency for necessity. In other words, it would work if Premise 2 were flipped front-to-back.
19.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
By studying ancient ███ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████ █████████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ █ ████████ ███ ████████████ ███ ██████ ████
(A) is all over the place with the terms it uses. Just look at the noun art: (A) involves ancient and modern art, and talks about appreciating it and studying it and understanding it. These are all distinct concepts, so the resulting diagram features a ton of random disconnects:
Premise 1: Study Ancient Art → Appreciate Materials
Premise 2: Appreciate Ancient Art → Understand Modern Art
________
Conclusion: Study Ancient Art → Appreciate Modern Art
b
If you learn ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████
(B) commits the fallacy of confusing sufficiency for necessity – that is, it would be valid if Premise 2 were flipped left-to-right. If (B) didn’t seem right to you, it’s probably either because of the “provided that” drama discussed in the “Parsing The Language” section of this explanation, or because you need to remember that if introduces the sufficient condition even when it comes mid-sentence.
Premise 1: Latin → Vocab
Premise 2: Great Works → Vocab
________
Conclusion: Latin → Great Works
c
Traveling to other █████████ ███████ █████ ████████████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████
(C) is interesting in that it does involve confusing sufficiency for necessity. Instead of reversing Premise 2, though, (C) establishes a valid logical chain, then reverses the conclusion.
Premise 1: Traveling → Appreciate
Premise 2: Appreciate → Study
________
Conclusion: Study → Travel
You could combine Premises 1 and 2 here to infer Traveling → Study. You can’t do that in the stimulus.
d
Studying hard while ██ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ █ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████
(D) should feel a bit sus on its loosey-goosey terms. Like we could diagram Premises 1 and 2 in a way that matches if we conflate internalizing habits with retaining them. Which… those two concepts are not the same. But anyway let’s just say it’s:
Premise 1: Study → Habits
Premise 2: Attitude → Habits
Even on that hand-wavey framing of the premises, (D)’s conclusion is off.
Conclusion: Study → Success
For (D)’s conclusion to match our stimulus, we’d need to treat the concepts of Success and Attitude as identical. And those two are really not the same.
e
One can become ████████ █████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ █████████
(E) is a valid argument. It establishes a conditional chain, then draws a valid inference from it. In other words, it fails to match our stimulus because (E)’s Premise 2 is the converse of the stimulus’ Premise 2.
Premise 1: Newspaper → Informed
Premise 2: Informed → Appreciate
________
Conclusion: Newspaper → Appreciate
(E)’s Premise 1 uses the same “provided that” phrasing as the stimulus’ Premise 2. But if you picked (E) and your excuse for this question is I didn’t know what “provided that” meant, you’re not off the hook.
Translating “provided that” correctly yields an invalid argument in the stimulus and a valid one in (E). Translating it backward yields a valid argument in the stimulus and an invalid one in (E).
Wrong or right, if you’re consistent in how you translate the phrase, (E) still doesn’t match the stimulus.