Top Law Schools

Hey all,

I have seen a lot of improvement, but one area where I am stuck is parallel flaw.

Are there any resources for drilling that I can use? It's not that I can't do them, but I find myself making careless mistakes due to the volume of information. I know its only a few questions on a given test, but now that I have broken 170 in PTs it is relatively high yield.

I did my prep through powerscore and can't seem to find any additional resources on their website to specifically drill this section.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

You can drill those using the Parallel packet (LinkRemoved).

I've found that focusing on flaws in general will help a lot. When you're trying to compare the assumption of the stimulus versus the assumption of the answer choice, it's a little bit harder than if you classified the assumption as a specific type of flaw and are comparing those.

bp shinners wrote:I've found that focusing on flaws in general will help a lot. When you're trying to compare the assumption of the stimulus versus the assumption of the answer choice, it's a little bit harder than if you classified the assumption as a specific type of flaw and are comparing those.

That's good advice, I'll try abstracting it. Thank you.

notalobbyist wrote:Hey all,

I have seen a lot of improvement, but one area where I am stuck is parallel flaw.

Are there any resources for drilling that I can use? It's not that I can't do them, but I find myself making careless mistakes due to the volume of information. I know its only a few questions on a given test, but now that I have broken 170 in PTs it is relatively high yield.

I did my prep through powerscore and can't seem to find any additional resources on their website to specifically drill this section.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

So this may be a bit beyond what you're asking, but maybe my 2 cents will help. When you're looking at a parallel flaw question, it's easier to get through the stim and answers if you look at them in an abstract sense (identify constituent parts of argument and see how conclusion fits). So first off I look at the stim and if there's a glaring logical error such As, A->B B->C therefore, C->A. Right there I know exactly what I'm looking for in the answer choices. I don't read the answers for specific content, I'm just looking for an A, B, C and a wrong reversal of logic.

Now if there's no formal logic error within the flaw, now you're going to be looking for the more subtle forms of errors such as drawing too strong of conclusions based on the premise. Again once I identify what I'm looking for in the stimulus, I'll move to the answer choices looking for that specific error.

Regardless of the error type, I always helped me to think about what I read, consider what is most wrong with it, visualize it, and only then move on to the answer choices once I know what I'm looking for.