Hey guys, I've noticed more parallel reasoning questions on recent PT's, and, with my luck, they're also the only ones persistently giving me trouble/costing the most time. Does anyone have a particular method that helps them with these? Like is it better to look for similarities in the conclusions, premises, or overall structure first? Also, has anyone noticed common traps writers put in the incorrect answers? I find myself stuck between 2 and choosing the wrong one. Thanks!
Comments
1. I just read the stimulus slowly and get a grasp of what it's saying.
I then quickly move to the answers and read them. Sometimes just having an idea of what's going on, and then seeing an answer choice that reflects that idea, is easy and quick. Most of the time they can be solved this way.
2. Mapping out the stimulus and then mapping out each answer choice. This takes more time, but if I'm stumped and the first method doesn't work, I use this one.
Section 2 Question 8.
"A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple personality disorder on the grounds that in all her years of clinic practice, she had never encountered one case of this type".
I would solve this one using the first method. Why? Because it's kinda easy to get a sense of what's going on. The argument is saying there is no such thing as something (lets say X) because you've never come across it/seen it.
This is compared to Section 3 Question 20.
"Every moral action is the keeping of an agreement, and keeping an agreement is nothing more than an act of securing mutual benefit. Clearly, however, not all instances of agreement keeping are moral actions. Therefore, some acts of securing mutual benefit are not moral actions".
This one I would map out.
MA --> KOAA --> NMASMB , ect.
If it is obvious from the stimulus of the question that it is heavy on conditional logic i'll map it out on paper if it isn't a simple argument form that i can keep in my head. I would go through and scan each answer choice quickly and eliminate the ones that are easy to see are incorrect. Usually there are only two (three if you're unlucky) that i need to map out in depth.
If its a formal logic question i'll go through an eliminate quickly based off of the questions that don't match the all, some, most, etc in the conclusion or premises and then only map out the ones that have a chance of being right.
Other parallel question don't involve conditional logic or formal logic and with these you can usually just see the reasoning or the flaw easily without having to map it out, I find these to go by a lot quicker.
Hope that helps some.