Self-study
Shopkeeper: Our city will soon approve the construction of a new shopping center, but Conclusion I won't be relocating my store there. ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██ █ ███████████████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████████
Objective: Parallel Questions
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.
Argument Structure: 2 Needs, 2 Bad Options
I’m gonna describe this argument’s structure using a mix of English and formal logic. At its core is a conditional statement with 2 necessary conditions:
If I’m relocating my store, it’s gotta be to a site that’s high-visibility and has good growth potential.
Relocate → High-Vis and Growth Potential
The “and” means we need to have them both. A failure on either condition kills the relocation project.
The shopkeeper then says there are only two site options, and each option fails one of the necessary conditions:
Gotta be either Maple or West
Maple: /High-Vis
West: /Growth Potential
Since neither option meets both necessary conditions, the shopkeeper concludes they won’t relocate (/Relocate).
So here’s the template to bring into the answer choices:
[Thing] has 2 necessary conditions.
We’ve only got 2 options.
Option 1 fails one necessary condition.
Option 2 fails the other necessary condition.
________
[Thing] won’t happen.
Lastly, a note on diagramming unless. Unlike the stimulus, all the answer choices use “unless” phrasing for their opening premise. You diagram “unless” statements by picking one of the conditions, negating it, and saying “Congrats! You’re the sufficient condition now!” To better match the stimulus, I’m gonna diagram all the answer choices’ unless claims with the “2 conditions” piece on the right. Here’s a guideline for how to think about that translation in English:
Unless Statement: Bork won’t do the [thing] unless [requirement 1] and [requirement 2].
If-Then Translation: If Bork ended up doing the [thing], [requirement 1] and [requirement 2] must have been met.
Logic: Bork → Req 1 and Req 2
25.
The pattern of reasoning in █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ ██████████
a
Appiah will not █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██████
(A) fails because it lacks the 2 options structure. This is arguably catchable on your shallow dip.
Everything else matches! In (A), we do have a [Thing] with 2 necessary conditions:
Renew → /Rent↑ and Pet
But rather than splitting the scenario up into 2 options, (A) just says both conditions fail:
/Pet and also Rent↑
It finishes by validly concluding /Renew, just like the stimulus.
If you selected (A) because you saw the other matching elements and thought “the options thing isn’t crucial,” take this as a data point about what does and doesn’t matter in Parallel questions. The options thing matters.
b
Professor Myers is ██████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ██████ ████ █████████
The easiest-to-spot reason to eliminate (B) is that its conclusion says the [Thing] will happen, whereas the stimulus concludes the [Thing] won’t happen. That’s arguably catchable on your shallow dip.
Here’s the full structure, though, with the mismatches bolded:
Teach → Diaz and Afternoon
Gotta be either Ethics or Political Theory
Ethics: /Afternoon
Politics: Afternoon and Diaz
________
Teach
Option 2 meets both necessary conditions. This makes (B) wrong.
c
Finch will not ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████
(C) fails because its two necessary conditions are linked by or instead of and. In (C), you can make do with only one of the two conditions – you don’t need them both. This is arguably catchable during your shallow dip, but it’s fine if you didn’t spot it at once. If you picked (C), though, the lesson is either:
a) Get more disciplined about actually doing a deep dive and diagramming these arguments, at least (C), (D), and the stimulus.
b) Review how to diagram ands and ors.
Here’s (C)’s structure, with the mismatch bolded:
Travel → Cheap or Friend
Gotta be either Bridgeport or Hazleton
Bridgeport: /Cheap
Hazleton: /Friend
________
/Travel
d
The concert will ███ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ████
Here’s (D)’s structure, which matches the stimulus piece for piece. See the end of the analysis section for a note on how to handle the “unless” phrasing:
Sell Out → Small and Downtown
Gotta be either Jensen or Pembroke
Jensen: /Small
Pembroke: /Downtown
________
/Sell Out
If you didn’t like (D) because you thought “small venue in the downtown area” was one condition, look back at the stimulus and note that by the same logic, “high-visibility site with good growth potential” could also read as one condition.
e
The new park ████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ███████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████████
(E) should arguably fail your shallow dip when it doesn’t introduce a second option in addition to lamps. Like a matching version of (E) would loosely say “We gotta either do lamps or fireflies,” and go from there.
Here’s (E)’s full structure, though, which is also mismatched in other ways:
Popular → Well Lit and Undisturbed
Lamps → Well Lit (this should be sus too, b/c we want Lamps → /Well Lit)
Lamps → /Undisturbed
________
/Popular
Taking (E) on its own terms, it’s flawed because the conclusion should be conditional rather than absolute. That is, the valid reasoning would be:
Conditional Chain: Lamps → /Undisturbed → /Popular
Valid Inference: Lamps → /Popular
So aside from all the specific little differences in structure between (E) and the stimulus, we can also just say the stimulus exhibits valid reasoning, but (E) doesn’t.