Top Law Schools

Kaplan recommends one to identify the conclusion in parallel reasoning and then eliminate answers that do not have a similarly structured conclusion to save time. However, I get caught up looking for "therefore" or "since" but every answer seems to have these words. So, what red flags should I look for when I am trying to eliminate answers based on their conclusion.

Kaplan is simply wrong...in many cases...

scooter7 wrote:Kaplan recommends one to identify the conclusion in parallel reasoning and then eliminate answers that do not have a similarly structured conclusion to save time. However, I get caught up looking for "therefore" or "since" but every answer seems to have these words. So, what red flags should I look for when I am trying to eliminate answers based on their conclusion.

For parallel reasoning, denote the premises and the conclusion, don't really worry about the content but establish the relationship. Identify any conditional statements. Run through the answer choices, eliminate anything that doesn't mirror these relationships; the actual content is usually irrelevant. For example.

I usually eat breakfast in the morning. If I don't eat breakfast then I get cranky. I was cranky this morning so I must not have eaten breakfast this morning.

1) I never go to work without checking the weather. If I don't check the weather, then I freak out. I didn't freak out today, so I must have checked the weather.

2) When Microsoft sells a lot of stock, its usually because they need to raise capital. They recently had a profit of over $1 billion, so they must not have sold a lot of stock.

3) Some coffee can be bad for you because of its caffine. I don't like caffine, so I don't drink coffee.

4) Unless Max starts going to the gym, he won't make the team. Coach typically picks the fittest players to fill the roster. Max got in the best shape of his life so coach must have picked him to be on the team.

Break down:
Premise 1: Some clause
Premise 2: Conditional statement
Conclusion: Mistaken reversal

1)
Premise 1: Definite Clause
Premise 2: Conditional Statement
Conclusion: Valid Conclusion
WRONG

2)
Premise 1: Conditional Statement
Premise 2: ASSUMPTION
Conclusion: Valid Conclusion
WRONG

3)
Premise 1: Some Clause
Premise 2: Information
Conclusion: Invalid Conclusion
WRONG

4)
Premise 1: Conditional Statement
Premise 2: Some Clause
Conclusion: Mistaken Reversal
CORRECT

Remember, the order doesn't really matter and the content doesn't matter. The premises and conclusions just have to match.

Screw the gimmicks. If you really make an effort to understand the logical flow of the argument you should be able to eliminate at least three of the response options (and sometimes four of them) very quickly. That is the key to getting these questions correct and doing so in a timely manner.

Echo everything said so far.

Princeton Review uses the same "conclusion" technique, and for obvious reasons, it doesn't always work.

It'll help you a lot more to learn to recognize the logical structure in LSAT questions rather than crappy tricks Kaplan teaches.

So I'm following what you are all saying correctly, obviously the content is not going to be the same but the reasoning behind the content should be the same (100%) ?

What I find myself having trouble with is pin pointing the exact type of logic being used,


For example : Bank deposits are credited on the date of the transaction only when they are made before 3 P.M.

Would this be considered a) fact? b) conditional statement because of the word "only" ( if deposits are credited on the date of the transaction, then they were made before 3 pm ? )

jay115 wrote:Echo everything said so far.

Princeton Review uses the same "conclusion" technique, and for obvious reasons, it doesn't always work.

It'll help you a lot more to learn to recognize the logical structure in LSAT questions rather than crappy tricks Kaplan teaches.

I am currently doing LRB's chapter on parallel reasoning. At first, I tried distinguishing the answer choices through their logical structure but that was very time consuming. I have been trying Kaplan's elimination method through looking at the conclusions, and it has been much quicker, although it doesn't work when all the conclusions are similar.

I'll echo what everyone else said - it's a better idea to fully understand the arguments rather than relying on any gimmicks. But I think it's worthwhile to check the conclusions. I don't mean to check for words like "therefore", because almost every conclusion has words like that, but to check for the logical certainty of the conclusion. For example, if the stimulus' conclusion is "therefore, all birds must be able to fly", I can eliminate answer choices with conclusions like "all lizards can probably crawl" or "it is likely that fish can swim". But be careful, because words like "usually" have a number of synonyms that pop up in the answer choices.

I don't know if this is what Kaplan teaches, but I find I can usually eliminate 1 or 2 answer choices by doing this.

Look for keywords as well, as you might get some easy PR questions. If the conclusion uses a word such as MIGHT, COULD, or CAN, then the conclusion of the correct answer cannot use a word such as MUST.

This worked for me...

If you know how to diagram arguments from a Logic class or using a consistent form of shorthand, simply diagram (mentally or physically) the stem and all subsequent answer choices you can't immediately discard. Select the answer with the identical diagram.

A shortcut would be if you find the argument in the stem commits a simple logical fallacy: i.e. necessary/sufficient, correlation/causation, negating the antecedent, etc etc. Just read through the answers and find the choice with the same mistake.

Mcds is correct in noting how you should go about analyzing the game. Follow the argument, it's flaws and all, and find the argument that makes the same mistakes in the same degree. The kaplan method seems like a short hand approach that may not necessarily work, the conclusions may not necessarily tell the story entirely of the argument. Theoretically, a mistaken reversal could appear in a wrong answer choice, but the structure of the premises could be entirely different making it non-parrallel