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 all Parallel questions, we develop an abstract model of the stimulus’ argument, preserving the structure but not the subject matter. We treat Parallel Flaw questions much the same, just with a greater emphasis on distilling the flaw.

We’ll then take a shallow dip into the answer choices looking for structural mismatches. Typically 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.

One of the most commonly tested concepts on the LSAT is the difference between absolute and relative claims. If I tell you I am taller than my mother, I’m not necessarily tall. If I tell you I’m tall, I’m not necessary taller than my mother.

In a variation on that theme, this argument features a subtle shift between two different relative claims – claims comparing one concept to another, and claims comparing one concept to itself.

The conclusion is a claim comparing Glenville to itself – comparing past Glenville to present Glenville.

Conclusion: Glenville’s rents have decreased over time.

The Premises, though, are two claims comparing Glenville to its peers in the metropolitan region. And ok let’s give that concept a name – let’s say Glenville and the others are all boroughs (shout out NYC).

Premise 1: Glenville had (in the past) higher rents than all other boroughs.
Premise 2: Glenville has (presently) lower rents than a few other boroughs.

As you may have noticed, these claims also cover different periods of time. Together, they show that Glenville’s rents relative to the other boroughs have decreased over time.

Premise 1+2: Glenville’s rents relative to the other boroughs have decreased over time.
Conclusion: Glenville’s rents have decreased over time.

One example of this is power creep in Olympic sports. Over time the general standards for performance have increased dramatically. What was once a gold medal 100m sprint time wouldn’t even make top 10 today. Now imagine it’s the same runner running the same speed, past and present. Let’s name her Jimple. Jimple has gotten slower relative to other athletes not because she’s getting slower herself, but because the other athletes are getting faster.

Sticking with the stimulus long enough to work out some version of this flaw is reasonable and important going into the answer choices. This argument has a few other characteristics that become relevant when analyzing the answer choices, but those are better recognized than anticipated. We’ll cross those bridges as we come to them.