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

I don't know why I got this answer right, but reading through the answer choices, AC B felt intuitively correct. Is this something that I can trust for the actual test, or do I need to look into this further?

not to toot my own horn, but got this level 5 difficulty question right in 40 secs... TOOT TOOT bruh

Is anyone else liking NA questions more than SA?

how do they justify jumping from a level 2 to a level 5 question so early on /: they really know how to break my fleeting confidence

Once I re-read the stim probably 20 times and got over the girl math I was doing in my head to make sense of the content, I got the question right :)