Parallel reasoning

User avatar
Fianna13
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am

Parallel reasoning

Postby Fianna13 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:53 pm

For all you parallel LR gurus out there, can you eliminate AC just because the conclusion contains a not when the stimulus didnt, or vice versa? I've been using this technique and its been working 99 percent of the time. But on one of the PT's because of this technique I eliminated the right one and had to go through all the ACs again to find the right one. So does this happen more often in recent Pts, like 40+, or it's that one weird problem?

User avatar
Helicio
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:22 pm

Re: Parallel reasoning

Postby Helicio » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:45 pm

Fianna13 wrote:For all you parallel LR gurus out there, can you eliminate AC just because the conclusion contains a not when the stimulus didnt, or vice versa? I've been using this technique and its been working 99 percent of the time. But on one of the PT's because of this technique I eliminated the right one and had to go through all the ACs again to find the right one. So does this happen more often in recent Pts, like 40+, or it's that one weird problem?


You have to keep in mind that this doesn't always work.

Let's say you have:

1.) He decided to go to the mall.

2.) He decided not to go to the barn.

In this case, you would probably be correct using your method.

On the other hand:

1.) He decided to go to the mall.

2.) He did not decide to not go to the barn.

In this case, your method of elimination fails because it could be parallel.

These examples are simple, but the point is that negatives are complex and can be combined in many ways. Do not make the assumption that "not" signals the sentence is going into the opposite direction from the stim.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Parallel reasoning

Postby flem » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:45 am

Helicio wrote:
Fianna13 wrote:For all you parallel LR gurus out there, can you eliminate AC just because the conclusion contains a not when the stimulus didnt, or vice versa? I've been using this technique and its been working 99 percent of the time. But on one of the PT's because of this technique I eliminated the right one and had to go through all the ACs again to find the right one. So does this happen more often in recent Pts, like 40+, or it's that one weird problem?


You have to keep in mind that this doesn't always work.

Let's say you have:

1.) He decided to go to the mall.

2.) He decided not to go to the barn.

In this case, you would probably be correct using your method.

On the other hand:

1.) He decided to go to the mall.

2.) He did not decide to not go to the barn.

In this case, your method of elimination fails because it could be parallel.

These examples are simple, but the point is that negatives are complex and can be combined in many ways. Do not make the assumption that "not" signals the sentence is going into the opposite direction from the stim.

This

I always had great success eliminating wrong answers by matching language in the stimulus and the answers. Look for absolute phrases (always, never, etc) and go from there when you get stuck.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tazewell and 7 guests