When doing Parallel flaw...

nathanieljschwartz

Do you focus on finding the flaw in the argument and then matching that to an AC? Like any other flaw q, just instead of naming it you find another example of that? Or do you focus on the argument structure?
Thr biggest time sink questions for myself are the parallel questions and if i have to go through the same method for parallel flaw, i dont see how i will have enough time

BinghamtonDave

Often times the flaw can be found in the argument structure. The main problem I see folks having with these questions is timing. The solution to that problem in my estimation is more experience with the abstract core of the argument. It might be as simple as "If A then B, We have a B therefore A" or it could be as difficult as "A<----Some------>B<----Some---->C therefore A some C" with the A some C conclusion written first and the some relationship obscured in some way through language. Timing problems can be mitigated by an understanding of argument forms.

An understanding of argument forms is not a panacea to every parallel flaw question. Sometimes, the form might be something we have to abstract out on the fly. What I mean by this is that what we might have to do is come back to the problem and spend 1 minute 45 seconds on it after we have gotten all the other points, this happens. One thing I will add about parallel flaw questions is that the wrong answer choices should stick out to us, because a majority of the time, they are wrong in structure: I would say, unscientifically, 80-90% of the time. The tougher answer choices to eliminate will be those that pull back in the voracity of the conclusion and add a "maybe" or a "probably" when our original form was more sure about the conclusion.

In summation, because it is always helpful to offer specifics, find 10 of these problems to do today from the question bank in sets you've already done and break them down to their form in the comment section. I can take a look at your work and offer any pointers if you would like.

David

nathanieljschwartz

Thanks @BinghamtonDave, i am gonna try this out, i think i am having an issue with argument structure in general. I understand valid and invalid. And lawgic. But when LSAC throws in all the fluff,as you said, it gets harder to cut through the crap and to identify what really is going on. Would you suggest just taking a lot of of SA, MBT, Parallel reasoning questions and diseccting them for the argument structure and core. According to my analytics, my main problems are NA, but for some reason i dont have that feeling of mastery over these questions, if anything i get scared when i see them.

BinghamtonDave

I would absolutely recommend dissecting questions in that way. I would also commend you on your honesty about how you feel when approaching certain questions. It is often through the process of being totally honest with ourselves on this exam that we are able to rid ourselves of mistakes in our approach. If there is a question you don't want to see, then there is a weakness in your approach. Drill those weaknesses away in a meaningful and productive fashion.

nathanieljschwartz

Thanks @BinghamtonDave , yeah when i sit down on test day i want to be able to look a question in the stimulus and say "i own you" lol. Time to get some drilling done