#14-

[Morgan2cats]

Analogy - How to Boiling Down Principles

Hi PowerScore,

In analogy questions, the stem sometimes asks us to match an example with an example from the passage. I think the process works like this: 'Example 1 → Boil down the principle → Example 2.' You are finding a specific instance that fits the description or requirements of the concept. However, I sometimes struggle with how to correctly identify or 'boil down' the principle/description/requirement.

For instance, in F1997, S2, P2, Question 14, I mistakenly thought pretentiousness was an important characteristic, so I chose B. However, the correct answer is A, which reflects: the uncertainty of the current issue, a smaller/cheaper action now, and the potential for a larger action once more is understood. It turns out pretentiousness wasn't significant.

My question is: how can I correctly boil down a principle? Are there any patterns, like principles often relating to comparison or time frames?

Thanks a lot!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Morgan,

While your overall question is more general in nature, since you cited a specific question from the Feb. 1997 RC section as an example (and I'll use details from that question in my answer), your question and this answer will likely be moved there so that it is easier for other students to find in the future.

We refer to these analogy type questions as Parallel Reasoning questions. We have specific strategies for solving Parallel Reasoning questions in the Logical Reasoning section, and those strategies can also be used in Reading Comprehension Parallel Reasoning questions as well. However, often simply understanding and prephrasing the abstract structure of the relevant section of the passage (and then identifying the answer that matches these elements) is enough to solve these questions.

For example, question 14 of Passage 2 asks for the closest parallel to the course of action described in the last paragraph.

The last paragraph mentions several key points:

1. Due to the uncertainty of a possible threat (line 51)
2. First take reasonable (meaning not too costly) steps that have benefits for their own sake (lines 52-56)
3. Then, as more information becomes available, determine if more costly measures are warranted (lines 57-59)

Then examine each answer to see which answer best matches each of these elements. If any part is missing, the answer is likely to be incorrect.

Answer A matches all three parts and is therefore the correct answer. It contains:

1. the "uncertain predictions" about a possible threat (asteroid colliding with Earth)
2. "an inexpensive but scientifically valuable program" matches reasonable steps that have benefits outside the asteroid threat
3. "determine whether more costly measures are warranted" perfectly matches the third point

All of the wrong answers are missing one or more of these elements.

As far as "pretentiousness," I don't see any indication of pretentiousness suggested in the passage or Answer B, so I can only assume that you're either trying to make some sort of political joke/comment or that you are inserting your own personal views on these issues/policies into the passage and question, which is never a good idea.

The reason that Answer B is incorrect is that it lacks the second and third elements of the course of action in the passage. "Preventing any likely means" would not match taking reasonable (meaning not too costly) steps that have benefits for their own sake. Instead, that would be going directly to costly measures without waiting to determine whether those costly measures are actually warranted.

More information on Parallel Reasoning questions can be found in "The Logical Reasoning Bible" and any PowerScore LSAT course.

[Morgan2cats]

Hi Morgan,

While your overall question is more general in nature, since you cited a specific question from the Feb. 1997 RC section as an example (and I'll use details from that question in my answer), your question and this answer will likely be moved there so that it is easier for other students to find in the future.

We refer to these analogy type questions as Parallel Reasoning questions. We have specific strategies for solving Parallel Reasoning questions in the Logical Reasoning section, and those strategies can also be used in Reading Comprehension Parallel Reasoning questions as well. However, often simply understanding and prephrasing the abstract structure of the relevant section of the passage (and then identifying the answer that matches these elements) is enough to solve these questions.

For example, question 14 of Passage 2 asks for the closest parallel to the course of action described in the last paragraph.

The last paragraph mentions several key points:

1. Due to the uncertainty of a possible threat (line 51)
2. First take reasonable (meaning not too costly) steps that have benefits for their own sake (lines 52-56)
3. Then, as more information becomes available, determine if more costly measures are warranted (lines 57-59)

Then examine each answer to see which answer best matches each of these elements. If any part is missing, the answer is likely to be incorrect.

Answer A matches all three parts and is therefore the correct answer. It contains:

1. the "uncertain predictions" about a possible threat (asteroid colliding with Earth)
2. "an inexpensive but scientifically valuable program" matches reasonable steps that have benefits outside the asteroid threat
3. "determine whether more costly measures are warranted" perfectly matches the third point

All of the wrong answers are missing one or more of these elements.

As far as "pretentiousness," I don't see any indication of pretentiousness suggested in the passage or Answer B, so I can only assume that you're either trying to make some sort of political joke/comment or that you are inserting your own personal views on these issues/policies into the passage and question, which is never a good idea.

The reason that Answer B is incorrect is that it lacks the second and third elements of the course of action in the passage. "Preventing any likely means" would not match taking reasonable (meaning not too costly) steps that have benefits for their own sake. Instead, that would be going directly to costly measures without waiting to determine whether those costly measures are actually warranted.

More information on Parallel Reasoning questions can be found in "The Logical Reasoning Bible" and any PowerScore LSAT course.

Hi Jeff,

Thank you very much, it's very helpful!

Sorry for the "pretentiouness", it was a typo: I meant to type "preventive."