Self-study
Artist: Support I have never won a prize at the Art Competition, even though Support several of my submitted paintings have received widespread recognition and have sold thousands of copies as posters. █ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████
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 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.
Argument Summary: Distilling The Flaw(s)
Note: the summary below treats “the Art Competition” as the argument’s domain.
Our poor artist is salty about never winning prizes. My paintings are
Then the very strongly worded conclusion: all prize winners are bad.
There are a few flaws at play here. The big one is that the artist’s conclusion is an all statement that’s only backed up by individual examples. Naming a few good artists who have never won does not establish that no good artists ever win. Maybe the winner was some different good artist.
Here's the other: the artist shifts from talking about popularity in the premises to goodness in the conclusion. Even if the premises established that no one popular ever wins, that wouldn’t be enough to conclude that no one good ever wins.
As it happens, our right answer preserves both flaws.
25.
The pattern of flawed reasoning ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████
a
Researcher: I have █████ ███ █ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████████ █ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████████ █████ ████ █████████████ ██ █████ ███ ███████████
(A)’s conclusion isn’t an all claim. That’s enough, and it’s visible during the shallow dip.
Interestingly, (A) actually repairs both of the stimulus’ flaws. Its conclusion is much less strongly worded, as mentioned earlier, and instead of shifting subtly from one concept to another (popularity vs. goodness), it starts off with marketability (getting patents and being lucrative are close enough for (A)’s purposes) and then explicitly concludes the prizes are based on something other than marketability.
b
Cook: I always ███ █ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ █████ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ██████ ████ █████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ████████ ██████
This cook is not salty at all – they’re winning prizes left and right. That’s enough to move on during the shallow dip, though perhaps not enough to rule out (B) entirely.
But there’s a clean structural mismatch if you dive deep. Our stimulus provides examples of good people not winning and concludes all winners are bad. (B) provides examples of bad people winning and concludes winners are also bad. For the first two terms (B) is just the “not” version of the stimulus – good turns to bad, and not winning turns to winning. But both conclusions come out bad, so (B) isn’t just a “not” version of the stimulus.
c
Professor: The same ██████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████████████ █████ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████
(C)'s conclusion isn’t an all claim. That’s enough, and it’s visible during the shallow dip.
(C) also repairs our second flaw – the subtle concept shift from popularity to goodness. Both its premise and its conclusion speak directly to quality (since the quality of a single essay doesn’t change).
d
Student: The student ██████████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████████
Here’s our match. I’m salty because my proposals never get taken seriously! But they’re so popular, and many other popular proposals also aren’t taken seriously! Therefore, all seriously-taken proposals are bad.
The easier match to find is the “all claim” conclusion. But (D) also preserves the stimulus’ subtle shift from popularity to goodness, which really seals the deal.
e
Travel agent: When █ ██ ██ ████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ █ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ ████ █████
On a shallow dip it might seem like (E)’s conclusion isn’t an all claim, but that’s debateable – it’s still a categorical claim about (all) airlines having a certain characteristic.
The core mismatch is in the premises, which present two examples that mirror one another – good work gets punished, bad work gets rewarded. This two-sided coin dynamic of paired examples is absent in our stimulus, which instead provides two examples of the same thing (popular people failing to win prizes).
(E) also doesn’t preserve the shift from popularity to goodness – its examples are about good/hard work, and its conclusion is also about good/hard work.