Parallel/Parallel Flaw Trouble

aidenwrights

I am taking the test in september and am consistently PT'ing around high 160-low 170 but I find I consistently lose one or two points to these two question types. So I'd ideally like to clean them up before I get there.

Does anyone have any strategies for making these types of questions both more quick and more consistent? I find even when I get them right I'm unsure if I'm actually getting them right for the right reasons, or if it was just luck.

miaespi924

I normally skip these questions and then circle back when I get the time. Breaking the passages down into conditional logic (when it applies) really helps me identify the right answer. I hope this helps!

chlobees

Skipping is always a good idea if you aren't totally confident up front with these questions--it took me lots of practice to get consistent. I started getting PR questions correct more quickly when I took note of key features in the stimulus structure, since correct ACs should map pretty closely onto what you're provided. You'll sort of develop an intuition about "sniffing out" the wrong answers that are definitely not matches to the stimulus based on things like placement/presence of conditionals, strength and quantity indicator words (i.e. some/all/none + always/never/probably), negations or lack thereof, and correct order/linking of variables if all of the ACs use the same few terms in slightly different configurations.

I read the stimulus and pick out one or two of those things to focus on and compare to the ACs. When I'm totally lost, usually I find the conclusion and try to cut out ACs that are blatantly inaccurate (i.e. if stimulus has a conditional conclusion, you can reasonably cut out an AC that does not have a conditional conclusion; or if a stimulus has a conclusion that says you should do X AND Y, you could reasonably cut out an AC that says you should do X OR Y). Sometimes PR is more conceptual (see PT 143.1.25) and you can't use grammar to POE as easily, but this strategy hugely boosted my accuracy. These are just rules of thumb, of course, but can help you make an educated guess if you're short on time.

PF was much harder for me intuitively. Some will say that you should understand the flaw itself, but I ended up wasting too much time trying to dissect the stimulus and even more time trying to find that same flaw in convoluted or wordy ACs. What helped me on the challenging PF flaws is basically simplifying and abstracting the stimulus (the Core Curriculum was super helpful for me if you haven't already watched it) into something more conceptual, if that makes sense. That way you're sidestepping the tricky language and thinking more about the underlying relationships between each part of the argument in the form of variables. That way you can more easily match ACs based on cause/effect, set overlap, or conditionals just to name a few possibilities. PT153.2.25 is a really good example where simplifying the stimulus into building blocks/variables is an easy track to the answer. I will add that you can and should use the aforementioned structural techniques in situations where you're stuck between two similar answers--often the LSAT writers like to trick you by replacing "and" with "or" and hoping you don't notice, or not negating something that must be negated for the reasoning to work. Again, this is not a perfect strategy, but noticing where ACs diverge from the stimulus in important ways can help you feel more confident. Hope this helps!