Parallel Reasoning

[vsb2007]

How do you approach a parallel reasoning question? How do you eliminate the incorrect answers? I would like to go over page 289, number 1 in the Week End Course Book.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi vsb2007,

Parallel questions are just like Method questions in that they require you to understand the argument from a structural perspective. The only difference is, here you need to reproduce the argument structure with an analogous argument. Not only do you need to understand the structure of the argument, but you also need to understand the structure of the arguments in each of the five answer choices, which can be time-consuming. Here's what we mean by "structure," i.e. the elements you need to parallel:

• 1. The method of reasoning (conditional, causal, etc.)
  2. The validity of the argument (if the stimulus contains a valid argument, you need to come up with an answer choice containing a similarly valid argument, and vice versa)
  3. The conclusion, incl. any sub-conclusions. If the conclusion in the stimulus is probabilistic, you need to engage in the same level of probability (possibility, certainty, etc.). You also need to match the same level of intent. If the conclusion is absolute ("must", "never" "always"), you need to match that. If the conclusion is normative ("should," "ought to"), you need to match that as well. If the conclusion is modified numerically ("few", "most", etc.) you need to match that with a similar numerical modifier.
  4. The premises, and their relationship to the conclusion.

Here's what you do not need to parallel:

• 1. The order in which the premise(s) and the conclusion(s) are presented;
  2. The topic in the stimulus. In fact, many incorrect answer choices parallel the topic, but not the structural organization of the argument.

Sometimes, it is helpful to think of Parallel questions as if they were Method questions. In lieu of a prephrase, try thinking about what the answer would have been if this were a Method question.

Re: Question 1 on page 289, can you tell me more about how you approached it? Did you identify the conclusion and its premises? Did you isolate the answer choices where the conclusion has the same language, and the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is the same? Did they trick you with any attractive, but incorrect, answer choices? The more you tell us about your own way of attacking the question, the better we can help.

Thanks!

[cecilia]

Hi Nikki - Thanks for this post. Can one also add to that list - for Parallel reasoning - that you should also match conclusions or premises to their counterpart in the stimulus if the stim has any element of "positive" or "negative" relations to them?? For example:

Stimulus: The more you run, the more likely you will get a knee injury. (+ and + )

The "matching" answer choice should also reflect that relation:

The more you practice, the better the chances you will appear on Dancing with the Stars. ( + and + )

An *incorrect* match would be:
The more you practice, you diminish your chances to appear on Dancing with the Stars.

Would that be a correct understanding???? Maybe a better example of what I'm thinking of is the last question from PT 72's first LR section, regarding novels and movies. Question 26.

Thanks in advance.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Cecilia,

You are absolutely correct. An argument observing a positive correlation must be matched by an answer choice in which a positive correlation exists as well. You cannot match a positive correlation to a negative one, or vice versa.

Kudos on asking such a good question!

[cecilia]

Thanks Nikki!