Question on Parallel flaw questions

mzoodle

When answering these types of questions, should we pay attention to the content or substance of the answers, or only to the form?

Freddy_D

Structure over content. The content/subject is irrelevant, and the LSAT writers will often attempt to trick you with ACs that have the same content.

TheMikey

It slightly depends. If there is a bunch of modifiers (most, some, etc) and the flaw in the stimulus lies in that, then focus on the structure. If the PF question isn't like that, and there is literally just a flaw in it like a simple whole to part, causation/correlation, then you just keep the flaw in mind and find an AC that has that same flaw

I THINK 7sage teaches PF questions based mostly just on structure, just like parallel reasoning, but the above is how I approach PF questions.

Alex

@mzoodle said:
When answering these types of questions, should we pay attention to the content or substance of the answers, or only to the form?

Put priority on understanding the form/structure of the argument. But make sure you also understand the content of what the argument is saying and how the conclusion was arrived at.

Be wary of answer choices that have the same subject matter as in the stimulus. These are the most common trap answer choices on parallel questions. For example, if the stimulus talks about airline pilots who fly large aircraft and any of the answer choices talk about airplanes, it is usually a trap. Remember: we are looking to match structure and not content.

Victoria14

Look for structure first and foremost. BUT with that being said, I think keeping a subject in mind can help. For example, if the stimulus is talking about tacos and an answer choice is talking about ramen noodles, I would lean more towards that answer then the answer about dogs. Most often the correct answer choices would have the same category but not necessarily the exact same topic as Alex pointed out.

LSATcantwin

Hmm. I read for conclusions. It's the same thing I do in a Flaw question. I find the conclusion and ask "what did the author do to get to that" did he apply causation? Did he attack motive? Did he attack the person giving the argument? Did he rely on crap sample size?

Then once I figure it out I look for the AC that does the same.