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?
Comments
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.
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.
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 ...
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/