Parallel questions have a highly regimented theory and approach – even if your core logical intuitions are very strong, following a routine process specifically built around the LSAT’s unique patterns will dramatically reduce the time and mental energy required to identify the correct answer. So review these lessons. They’re important.

In short, though, our approach will be to develop an abstract model of the stimulus’ argument, preserving the structure but not the subject matter, then take a shallow dip into the answer choices looking for structural mismatches. Usually that suffices to identify the correct answer, but sometimes we’ll need a deep dive to distinguish between the (usually just two) answer choices that remain after our shallow dip.

If thinking about this question in English is easier for you than using formal logic, you need more practice gaining fluency in formal logic. Think of English and formal logic as two closely-related tools, like a hand screwdriver and a power screwdriver. While it’s true that any job you can complete with one you could also complete with the other, they each have niche uses in which they excel. If you find yourself tackling a line of 100 wood screws with a hand screwdriver, you need to get better with the power screwdriver.

This argument has a thorny structure, and the walkthrough for getting there is gonna get pretty real. In hindsight, this question is arguably best answered by just trying to match up all the statements one-for-one instead of trying to keep the entire structure in mind. I’ll walk you through the structure, though.

First, here’s an answer key of sorts – a full list of premises and (sub)conclusions, and a janky diagram laying out the core logic:

Premise 1: Poet and /Epigram → Wit
Premise 2: Lyrical → Poet
Premise 3: _A/Epigrams
Premise 4: _ALyrical
Sub-Conclusion (P4 + P2): _APoet
________
Conclusion (SC + P3 + P1): _AWit

This argument is a syllogism with a few extra steps. We’ve got two sufficient conditions (Poet and /Epigram) that, when both fulfilled, lead to Wit. We’re given one of them (/Epigram) directly. The other one (Poet) comes indirectly – we’re given another sufficient condition (Lyrical) that leads there, and then that condition is fulfilled.

Premise 1 is probably the hardest. Here it is again:

Premise 1: Poet and /Epigram → Wit

A couple things to break down here. First is how to arrive at the [Blah] and [Blah] structure. For that, let’s just ask who this rule applies to. Well, it kinda applies to all poets:

Poet → Wit

But no, I guess not all poets. There’s a subset of poets (the Epigram ones) who are exempt from the rule. But our focus isn’t on those exceptions – our focus is on the people to whom the rule does apply. Those are the Poets who aren’t in the exempted group: the Poet and /Epigram people.

Next, the word only might have tripped you up – isn’t that an indicator of necessity or something? Well, not here. Here we were able to bake it into the definition of a term – in our diagram, Epigram is defined as “writes only epigrams” (making /Epigram mean “doesn’t write only Epigrams”). It’s hard to explain fully in this space, but this move is possible because “only” is nested inside the sentence’s subject phrase. Click that link for a deeper dive.

Premise 2 is comparatively simple. It establishes a conditional link between lyrical composers and poets:

Premise 2: Lyrical → Poet

If we learn someone is a Lyrical-type person, we can infer they’re a Poet-type person.

The third sentence gives us two characteristics that apply to a specific individual, our boy Azriel:

Premise 3: _A/Epigrams
Premise 4: _ALyrical

(If you’re rusty on this notation, review it here.) Premise 3 says Azriel is not a member of the “writes only epigrams” club. That’s huge. It gives us one of the two conditions we need to conclude he has Wit.

Premise 4 says he is a member of the “lyrical composers” club. That’s a bit meh on its own, but we can combine Premise 4 with Premise 2 to infer that Azriel is a Poet:

Sub-Conclusion 4+2: _APoet

That’s big: now that we know he’s a Poet and a /Epigram-type person, we can use Premise 1 to infer he has Wit.

Conclusion (SC + P3 + P1): _AWit

It’s a complex structure for sure. Now that we have all the claims laid out cleanly, though, matching each claim in the answer choices up with its counterpart in the stimulus will be a lot easier.