For some reason, these questions are always so hard for me (and there are usually 1-2 per LR section), so I feel like I really need to get these down.
Does anyone have tips/tricks for attacking them?
Parallel Reasoning/Flawed Parallel Reasoning Question Help Forum
-
carasrook
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:00 pm
-
abcdefg1234567
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:40 am
Re: Parallel Reasoning/Flawed Parallel Reasoning Question Help
i think understanding the argument completely before moving to the answer choices is really important. I noticed that when I first started practicing I payed way too much attention to parts of the stim that had nothing to do with the actual argument. Picking it apart, paraphrasing, and diagramming have all helped me. Also, I do a first pass to eliminate answers that stick out as wrong and then focus on what's left. Often there is only one remaining but sometimes two or three. At that point I decide to skip and come back if there's time. No point in spending 2-3 min on a question, and even worse to spend all that time and still get it wrong.
-
lujk
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:03 am
Re: Parallel Reasoning/Flawed Parallel Reasoning Question Help
Can you give me an example of one you find tricky from one of your practice tests? I'll break down a simple example question from a prep course website. I'm going to explain pretty in depth--not trying to be pedantic, I'm sure there's stuff you already understand, just don't want to leave out something you don't.
What I would do during the test here to save time is first eliminate any answer that doesn't have enough elements--so D, which has no conclusion, would be out (that diagram would be DE & CE). Also take out any that obviously contradict or expound on the argument, like A, which just introduces a new idea (that diagram would be S~D & S≠D). The other three you could diagram like so:
(B) ST & D~S => DT
(C) B~E <= BW & EW
(E) sRF & MF => R⊂M (the sign I used there in between the R and M is the sign for "is a subset of"; it can also go the other way; M⊃R would mean "M contains R")
E doesn't look anything like our diagram SF & DF => S~D. The other two do, but what you want to preserve is the relationship. Your conclusion should remain the same, and it's always going to be on the side that the arrow's pointing to. That is, SF & DF => S~D is equivalent to S~D <= SF & DF. You want the "shared element" of the two groups (like fins in the original argument) to be in both the premises, and you want the conclusion to be about the two groups' similarity. B switches these around. So C is your answer. The order in the sentence is backwards, but the diagram is equivalent.
If you want to go a little bit faster, after your initial diagram, instead of continuing to diagram, try just focusing on the concepts to each part: the two premises show a shared feature between two groups, and the conclusion states that this means those two groups are similar. Anything saying "group A and B both have X, so A and B are similar" will work. If you read the sentence with variables, it becomes clear that C ("A and B are similar because group A and B both have X") is the same idea.
I would write the argument's diagram like so: SF (sharks have fins) & DF (dolphins have fins) => S~D (sharks and dolphins are similar). That's two premises that together lead to a conclusion. This arrow, =>, you use when you see "therefore," or something similar, indicating the conclusion. This arrow, <=, you use when you see something like "because" or "since," indicating the reasons for something.Argument: All sharks have fins and all dolphins have fins therefore they are similar.
Answer choices:
(A) Sharks and dolphins are similar, however, they have many differences.
(B) All sharks have teeth, dolphins are similar to sharks therefore they must have teeth.
(C) Bats and eagles must be similar because every bat has wings and so does every eagle.
(D) All dogs have eyes and all cats have eyes.
(E) Some rats have fur and all mammals have fur, therefore, rats are mammals.
What I would do during the test here to save time is first eliminate any answer that doesn't have enough elements--so D, which has no conclusion, would be out (that diagram would be DE & CE). Also take out any that obviously contradict or expound on the argument, like A, which just introduces a new idea (that diagram would be S~D & S≠D). The other three you could diagram like so:
(B) ST & D~S => DT
(C) B~E <= BW & EW
(E) sRF & MF => R⊂M (the sign I used there in between the R and M is the sign for "is a subset of"; it can also go the other way; M⊃R would mean "M contains R")
E doesn't look anything like our diagram SF & DF => S~D. The other two do, but what you want to preserve is the relationship. Your conclusion should remain the same, and it's always going to be on the side that the arrow's pointing to. That is, SF & DF => S~D is equivalent to S~D <= SF & DF. You want the "shared element" of the two groups (like fins in the original argument) to be in both the premises, and you want the conclusion to be about the two groups' similarity. B switches these around. So C is your answer. The order in the sentence is backwards, but the diagram is equivalent.
If you want to go a little bit faster, after your initial diagram, instead of continuing to diagram, try just focusing on the concepts to each part: the two premises show a shared feature between two groups, and the conclusion states that this means those two groups are similar. Anything saying "group A and B both have X, so A and B are similar" will work. If you read the sentence with variables, it becomes clear that C ("A and B are similar because group A and B both have X") is the same idea.
