#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning questions

Alum Member
109 karma

Hey everyone,

My LSAT analytics are showing me that my Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning questions are of the highest priority. I've made some strong improvements in these two question types, but want to continue getting better at them. I'm hoping someone could shed some light on their approach to these questions. I will lay down my basic approach to them, and perhaps someone could tell me whether my approach needs work.

Parallel Flaw
For these question types I want to find the AC with the most similar flaw. Argument structure is not SO much as important (but still a consideration) as the flaw itself. So first, I check to see if I can diagram the argument in pure Lawgic. If I can do that and find a similar glaring flaw in the AC - BOOM - done. If the question doesn't translate well into logic, I try to use 'pseudo-logic' diagramming - much like the questions you encounter in PF section of the CC. If that doesn't work, I then try to to just understand and vocalize the flaw as a whole. Is the argument moving from relative evidence to absolute, is it confusing sufficient with necessary, etc etc?

These 3 approaches is essentially how I attack PF questions. What I find is however, that I'm usually unable to diagram the questions in pure Lawgic, so I either 'psuedo-diagram' or I try to vocalize the flaw. Is this a good tactic?

Parallel Reasoning
For these question types we want to find the AC with the same reasoning structure! First I try to see if the stimulus lends itself neatly into Lawgic. If that doesn't work, I attempt to use 'pseudo-logic' terms to better understand the parts of the argument and how they relate (structure). Finally, if that doesn't work, I try to vocalize the way in which the argument moves from premises to conclusion and find a similar conclusion. I find this question type easier because I can turn to the conclusion and eliminate answer choices which do not have similar conclusions.

SO, do you think my approach is good? Can I make improvements? If so, how?

Thanks, and good luck!

Show Related Discussions