Parallel Method of Reasoning and Parallel Flaw LR Tips

paigecmiller6

Hi Everyone! I am working through the last few sections of the LR part of the course and have struggled with the Parallel Method of Reasoning and Parallel Flaw Questions the most. I find that I take forever to read the AC and second-guess myself. I have gotten better at intuitively answering the other LR types now that I understand what the questions are asking (without Lawgic/diagramming... this is still difficult despite understanding the questions). Do I need to go back and study the Lawgic sections, or is there other approaches that might help?

LSAT Lizard

These are the hardest categories in LR for me, and people in study groups seem to frequently say the same thing.

I never find myself diagramming other types of LR questions, but for the parallel question types I will almost always write out the lawgic unless it's an especially easy one with simple and short reasoning. I generally won't waste time attempting these questions without diagramming first, since I'm nearly guaranteed to have to resort to diagramming anyway.

The correct AC is frequently a perfect match for the stimulus when it comes to lawgic. So instead of going through the ACs in order, I recommend checking for topical differences during the first pass and only diagramming the ACs that don't have topical differences. You can return to the skipped ACs later, but a surprising amount of the time you won't need to.

Here's an example I recently did from PT61- don't read further if you are saving PT61 as a pristine practice test!

---

This is PT61 S2 Q23, a parallel flaw question. The diagram for the stimulus looks like:

BH = brick house
FY = front yard
2S = two stories

BH --> FY
FY --most-> 2S
Therefore BH --most-> 2S

So superficially, I think it is most likely that the answer will have one 'all' relationship, one 'most' relationship, and a conclusion that is a 'most' relationship. The right answer could totally look different, but I'm going to start by assuming that the right answer will have identical logic and worry about other possibilities later only if I have to.

AC A has these elements and no others, so I take the time to diagram it. Instead of diagramming the bits of the AC in the order that they appear, I try to force them into the same order as the stimulus. I want to start with the 'all' relationship, then the 'most' relationship, then the conclusion:

L = legislator
PS = public servant
RFO = ran for office

L --> P
L --most--> RFO
Therefore P --most--> RFO

It does look similar but it's not quite identical. To be identical, the 'most' relationship would need a P instead of an L, and the conclusion would need an L instead of a P. I'm not disqualifying this AC, but for now I'm moving on in the hopes of a perfect match.

Looking at AC B, it's definitely not going to be a perfect match- there's no 'all' relationship to be found. AC B could absolutely be the correct answer, but right now I am only looking for a perfect match so I skip it.

Looking at C, it's not going to be a perfect match either- there's no use of 'most.' I'll skip this one for now too.

Looking at D, it's got all three topical pieces just like AC A, so I'll diagram it. And again, I make an effort to shoehorn the order I write things down to best resemble the stimulus.

L = legislator
PS = public servant
NRFO = never ran for office

L --> PS
PS --most-> NRFO
Therefore L --most-> NRFO

It's perfect! Of course the nouns are different, but the reasoning is exactly the same as the stimulus lawgic. There's no way to get a more perfect match, so I'm not even going to read AC E. And I'm not going to bother returning to AC C or D either. By being strategic about which ACs I spent time diagramming first, I ended up only needing to diagram 2 out of 5 possible answers.

Even if I for some reason considered AC E before AC D, it wouldn't have made the topical round, because just like AC B there is no 'all' relationship included.

---

Of course, this strategy only gets you a quicker answer some of the time. There will be other questions where none of the answers are a perfect match, and you have to do a second pass diagramming the stuff you skipped in the first pass. But a useful amount of the time, this strategy of focusing first on potential-perfect-matches will save you time. For this question, it really paid off.

claremont

My two cents,

For me, at least, these questions require a lot more work up front. You really have to understand the argument structure before moving into the ACs. Don't go into the ACs without having a sense of how the argument proceeds or what its flaw is (if it has one). If you can do this without translating it into logic that's great, but if you can't, then practice translating.

You really should try, if you have the time, to translate all conditional language when blind reviewing, it will make your intuition that much sharper, and if you need to translate during a question you'll be that much faster and accurate at it.

Being proficient at lawgic, in my experience at least, is crucial for success at parallel questions and many of the 4/5 star questions. Best of luck.

paigecmiller6

Understanding the topical differences before going into the AC's is SO helpful! Of course, I will diagram as well, but that quickly helps narrow down the AC's! And I typically try to diagram/ find out why each answer is incorrect during blind review, so I will take care to do that with the Parallel questions the most!