Is Parallel Flaw harder than Parallel Reasoning?

goalis180

Is it me or parallel flaw is more challenging than parallel reasoning, and it requires more intuition. I just started that section in my 7sage course, and I am just total trash at these questions lol. Also, from my 7sage course experience, it seems that these questions do not use too much lawgic. Any idea how to make approaching these questions slightly less difficult?

emli1000

Practice, practice, and more practice.. These are usually the questions I skip over because they're so time consuming, I always come back to them before the time is up.

goalis180

Well I figured practice lol, but nothing else that can give me the magical edge lollol. I understand with practice I will get better. I average about 4-6hrs a day studying usually 5 days a week sometimes 6 depending on my job, but if it really is JUST practice, then I have ample time to practice, I am taking the December Admin.

c.janson35

Focus on your thought process with these questions (and with all questions, really). Are you correctly identifying the conclusion? Are you correctly diagnosing the flaw? If these two skills aren't rock solid, then you're invariably going to have a difficult time with these questions because they require you to identify the conclusion and diagnose the flaw 6 times over (once in the stimulus, 5 answer choices).

If you are correctly identifying the flaw in the stimulus and in the choices, then you will most often be able to eliminate at least three answer choices just by eliminating non-matching flaws and outright eliminating any answer choice that does not present a flawed argument. These questions can be more difficult, but they are less open ended in that the stem tells you the argument is flawed--you just have to figure out how. You're right in that these questions aren't heavily lawgic based, but arguments incorrectly employing formal logic do show up (think: sufficient-necessary mix up, denying the sufficient and therefore concluding the necessary must also not occur, combining two some statements to conclude anything). Moral of the story: study up on your flawed methods of reasoning and these will become easier.

Finally, pay very close attention to word choice, as LSAC does not write carelessly. For example, if the stimulus has an absolute conclusion, then the correct answer will have an absolute conclusion, or if the stimulus has a probabilistic conclusion or a prescriptive conclusion, then the correct answer choice will also. Another example, if the stimulus does not contain any "some statements", then it is highly unlikely a correct answer will.

Pacifico

There is no magic on this test, and if you ever start to think that then they've got you right where they want you.

nye8870

No magic @Pacifico ... but I suspect some Voodoo

nicole.hopkins

@goalis180 said:
Is it me or parallel flaw is more challenging than parallel reasoning,

They're a fundamentally different task.

For PF, you want to identify the flaw in the stimulus (see LSAT Trainer for flaws!) and then find the AC that "commits" the same flaw—or is guilty of the same flaw. It's not about matching the reasoning—it's about matching the flaw in the reasoning. I think the mistake I've made a lot with these questions is in treating them as if they were also about matching the reasoning or somehow just PR questions that were imperfect; it's about matching the flawed reasoning, meaning, the same flaw is in play in both stimulus and AC.

goalis180

LMAO @nye8870 Epic comment. As for the rest of the comments, thank you for the help. I agree with all of you in that I must identify the flaw, which is probably what I was not doing, rather @nicole.hopkins I was doing what you were doing, I was trying to match the reasoning, and although I did not miss any of the 5 practice set problems, it was only 5, and it took me forever to consider each answer choice individually. (kind of weird I am struggling with these, but I am great at flawed method of reasoning questions lol. While I was doing the 7sage practice sets, I was zipping through the hard questions, and easy questions.)

nicole.hopkins

@goalis180 said:
I was doing what you were doing, I was trying to match the reasoning, and although I did not miss any of the 5 practice set problems, it was only 5, and it took me forever to consider each answer choice individually

Dude I had an almost identical experience! Until I started seeing some harder/more recent PF's, I basically had them lumped in with PR. Then I started getting them wrong because I had tried to match the reasoning as opposed to treating them like the flaw q's they are. As an aside, PF's would make for great Flaw ID practice, both in the stimulus and AC's.

I recently saw a PF Except question in which one of the AC's (the correct one in this case) was actually a 100% airtight argument. No flaw at all. So that was interesting ...

c.janson35

@nicole.hopkins each book in your gravatar is made up of different colors, so your gravatar is made up of different colors?

nicole.hopkins

@c.janson35 said:
@nicole.hopkins each book in your gravatar is made up of different colors, so your gravatar is made up of different colors?

goalis180

@nicole.hopkins how challenging was the PF except?

nicole.hopkins

@goalis180 said:
@nicole.hopkins how challenging was the PF except?

It threw me a little bit that, while four of the AC's were clearly committing the same flaw (attribute applying to parts applies to whole, IIRC), the remaining choice was actually a valid argument form. But since four of them clearly had the same flaw, that guy was the only one that didn't. Thus, POE saves the day yet again. And on the BR call, we discussed that it's the right AC because it's just not flawed

Difficulty 3.5/5, I'd say. 7sage analytics say 4/5.

JY says ... Some features/properties do carry from part to whole. It's primarily a grammatical issue. Interesting discussion in the video.

PT53.3.13 http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-3-question-13/

ENTJ

Word.