Skip Parallel or Analogy Questions?

fmorea25

The category of questions in logical reasoning that I have had the most trouble with are parallel or analogy questions. I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to, upon coming across them in the test, flag these questions and move on and come back to them at the end of the section. The questions are massive time eaters and I feel like my time could be better spent elsewhere. And even still, I will be coming back to them at the end anyway. I'd love to hear of any insights into this. Thanks.

SufferingfromSufficientCondition

I will preface this by saying that you should grow comfortable with all question types - knowing what they're asking and how to solve them - and advice on your question will vary depending on where you're at in your LSAT journey and your overall goals.

If your goal is to reach the 170s, you will absolutely need to be comfortable with these questions. However, it will take time and integration to reach this point.

Knowing your weak and strong areas is important, and strategy should be used during timed sections / PTs. Make sure to drill your weak areas outside of timed sections and PTs. In fact, I advise you to work on parallel and analogy questions UNTIMED until your accuracy increases. PTs are useful for gauging weak areas, but improvement (if you don't quite understand a question type or are extremely below target time when solving) needs to occur outside of PTs and timed sections.

If you integrate drills with PTs for timing practice and gauging other weak areas, it can be a good strategy - just be mindful of how you're using the strategy and make sure it's helping you in the long run. If you're skipping them just to get an extra point here and there, it will catch up to you on test day.

Edited for clarity.

natemanwell1

absolutely not. it doesn't make sense to take any more practice tests without knowing how to do one of the question types. the key with analogy/parallel questions is to chain the argument [e.g. if it is something like "clouds lead to rain" "rain leads to thunder "thunder leads to noise", "therefore rain leads to noise"], you would chain it as "clouds => rain => thunder => noise" => "clouds => noise"]. then you would simplify it by writing "a => b => c => d" therefore "a => d". then you would chain the answer choices. the other thing to do is look at key features in the initial argument and then look at the answer choices and see what have the same or different key features (for example, if one argument has an "if" and the other doesn't then you can likely eliminate that answer choice, or if one has a probabilistic conclusion and the other has a definite conclusion then you can likely eliminate that answer choice) (the final answer is always dependent on the other answer choices)

CTLSATTT

What helps me a lot is looking for the same language. Ex: Most, some, sometimes, not all, none. Make sure it perfectly matches the stimulus

Cant Get Right

If these are time sinks, you should absolutely skip them. You are right that these take an incredible amount of time to solve. Anything that's projected to take so much time should be skipped. That applies to top scorers too, btw. If I think solving on a Parallel question is going to be required, I skip it too. I score so consistently well because of this (among other things . . .), not in spite of it.

But there is middle ground between skipping and solving. Instead of solving these, check the stimulus and see if you understand the rationale of the argument. The rationale is a more intuitive understanding. Basically, do you get what the argument is and generally why the person making that argument would expect you to accept their conclusion? If so, you know the rationale. And if you know the rationale, go ahead and read through the answer choices. And don't abstract the structure of the rationale and force it onto the answers. That's a good way to learn and review, it's typically a very ineffective tactic under timed conditions. Instead, deal with the Answer Choices on their own. The right answer should strike you as having a similar rationale as the stimulus. Your thinking should sound like, "Huh, my take on this answer sure is similar to my take on the stimulus." When you find that answer, choose it and move on immediately. Assuming reasonably good fundamentals, you'll usually be right and occasionally be wrong. The points you pick up with the time you're able to bank will pay back the occasional wrong answers with interest.

This is very different from solving it formally. I'm not talking about how to learn or solve these. I'm talking about how to execute under timed conditions using a tactical approach that is practicable and effective. You won't see any explanation videos on this, but every consistent high scorer knows how to do it and understands its importance. Solving these out just isn't viable, so you have to be efficient. It is, of course, less reliable than solving. But it's fast. I'd rather have 80% accuracy and average 45 seconds on these than maintain 100% accuracy and take 2:30 on them. That's a savings of 1:45 per question, which I think is routinely achievable for testers who are investing in trying to solve these all the way out. Let's say there's five parallel questions on a test. That's a reasonable estimate. 80% accuracy across five questions is -1. But in exchange for that one point, I've banked 8:45. That's right: eight minutes and forty-five seconds. I guarantee you I'm going to convert 8:45 into way more than that one point I lost to bank that time. This is the easiest and best time management deal you are likely to find on this test.

So find that middle ground and try working off of the rationale instead of the formal structures. A bad job done fast here beats a good job that takes too long. Your ability to execute with accuracy will improve as you strengthen your fundamentals and gain more experience. But in the meantime, I would still recommend prioritizing the time over the points when you're doing timed drills or taking PT's. Formal deconstruction on these should be limited to extra time, blind review, and drilling fundamentals. That's important work, but it's different work from executing effectively under time.