Top Law Schools

Couple of Qs about Parallel Reasoning:

For parallel reasoning, if a conclusion in the stimulus is positive and a conclusion is in the choice is negative, is that sufficient grounds for eliminating that choice? No, right - because sometimes they just phrase things differently. But what about if the stimulus conclusion is someone should engage in a behaviour, while the choice is someone should NOT engage in a behavior - should that be sufficient grounds for eliminating a choice?

Also, if the conclusion in the answer choice is just the contrapositive of the conclusion in the stimulus, are they still parallel? Would this apply to any statement in the stimulus?

The correct ac doesn't need to match the stimulus in positive/negative terms. This can be true because things are phrased differently (e.g. "should not choose to abstain from participating" means "should choose to participate"). This doesn't mean that positive and negative are irrelevant, they obviously have bearing on each ac's logical structure which is very relevant, but they don't necessarily need to match.

If the conclusion "should participate" is reached by the same valid method of reasoning, and contains premises that parallel an argument with the conclusion "should never participate," they are parallel. If all things stay the same and the first conclusion and the second one have parallel flawed methods of reasoning, then it would be the correct answer to a parallel flaw question.

Engaging in a behavior in the stimulus and not engaging in a behavior in an ac can still be parallel.

Contrapositives also work.

The correct answer will match the stimulus on the method of reasoning, validity of argument, as well as premises and conclusion. Everything else, order, subject matter, positive/negative language, is irrelevant in terms of what must be matched.