#3 - Concept Reference, Parallel

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[zhon33]

This question was particularly strange to me and I'm having trouble seeing why the right answer is B. Could someone post an explanation? Thank you!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Zhon! This kind of question is indeed not super common on the LSAT. It's kind of like one of those old ACT analogy questions: "Finger is to Hand as Toe is to ?".

As always with Reading Comprehension, we want to Pre-Phrase as exact an answer as possible before looking at the answer choices. What is the general relationship between the cattle economy and the population size?

Well, let's look back at what the text tells us. The information relevant to this question is contained in the second paragraph. Regarding the population: "During the fourteenth century, the population of Great Zimbabwe probably exceeded 10,000. This was an extraordinary size for a city at that time in an environment of typical African savanna woodland." In other words, the population was surprising, given the shortcomings of the area that the paragraph goes on to list. The paragraph then explains how the cattle economy eschews those shortcomings and allowed for a large population to flourish. So a solid generalized answer to the question "What is the relationship between these two things?" would be something like "The first thing is a system that allows for the second thing to unexpectedly flourish." Or even more basic: "The second thing owes its unlikely success to the first thing."

What analogy in our answer choices matches that basic Pre-Phrase? Answer Choices (A) and (C) do not, those are both simply listing two things that often go hand-in-hand and complement each other. (E) does not; it merely lists the parts and then the whole. Answer Choice (D) is probably the closest wrong answer, since the first thing does in some instances facilitate the occurrence of the second thing. But it doesn't really match our Pre-Phrase; athletic contests aren't an unlikely success, and they don't really owe that success to sports stadiums (one can think of many popular athletic contests that don't involve sports stadiums, for example most marathons). Answer Choice (E), on the other hand, matches our Pre-Phrase very well. The system of Irrigation allows something as unlikely as a farm in the desert to exist and maybe be successful.

The keys to this question are honing in on the right areas of the passage, and creating a strong Pre-Phrase. Hope that helps!

[yuxuan]

irrigation and a farm in a desert sounds extreme. Does Great Zimbabwe's cattle economy contribute the most to population? How about mining? I chose D. It is important but not mandatory.

[Robert Carroll]

yuxuan,

The main point of the second paragraph is that the size of Great Zimbabwe's population was larger than the underlying biome would seem to permit, and that this size is accounted for by the cattle economy. We thus want an answer that shows some method of enabling something that looks unlikely for its environment. A farm in a desert would certainly be unlikely for the environment, and irrigation would be a putative method to achieve that unusual circumstance.

Answer choice (D) doesn't fit at all - a sports stadium would be exactly the right environment for an athletic contest. We want something that enables an otherwise unexpected thing to happen in an inhospitable environment.

Robert Carroll

[AnaSol]

Hi,

When I was doing this question, I had the following challenge:

Paul Marsh says: Well, let's look back at what the text tells us. The information relevant to this question is contained in the second paragraph. Which I was able to identify too when I was doing the PT.

Then Pauls says: Regarding the population: "During the fourteenth century, the population of Great Zimbabwe probably exceeded 10,000. This was an extraordinary size for a city at that time in an environment of typical African savanna woodland."

I too made mental note of that during the PT, but then I also referred to the last part of the paragraph that discusses the complexity of the cattle economy (last two sentences), and made mental note of that too.

It seems that I went too far and therefore when I combined the two elements I was unable to find an answer choice to parallel that reasoning. I do understand why the accredited answer is B.

But how can I know where to look (or stop looking) when doing these types of questions?

Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi AnaSol,

While there's nothing wrong in examining the various information provided in the passage about the cattle economy to refresh your memory (as these details may be relevant in the answer choices), it's important to also focus your attention on specifically what the question is asking, in this case the relationship between the cattle economy and the size of the population.

In other words, not everything that is discussed in the passage about the cattle economy directly addresses the relationship to the size of the population.

In addition, it's important to realize that this question is asking for the best match to the relationship between the cattle economy and the size of the population, not a perfect match. One of the answers (in this case, Answer B) is going to match the elements better than the other answers, even if it doesn't contain every feature of the original topics.

Lastly, it would be a mistake to assume that "irrigation" (Answer B) is not complex, whereas a topic like "accounting" (Answer C) is complex, (even for those of us who hate doing our taxes). If the question were focused on the complexity element of the cattle economy, that would be more clearly mentioned in the right answer. Here, the question is just focused on how the cattle economy allowed the population to flourish in a hostile environment, just as irrigation would do the same for a farm in a desert.

[lounalola]

In general, I notice I have quite a hard time with parallel questions in RC. Any tips on how to improve?

[Adam Tyson]

Treat them just like parallel reasoning questions in logical reasoning! Start with the aspect of the stimulus that you are supposed to parallel and describe it to yourself in a more abstract way. The correct answer will reflect that same relationship under different circumstances. Don't focus on the topic, because that won't be part of the answer. And always prephrase your answer, so you know what you're looking for. In this case, that prephrasing process should have gone something like this:

"The cattle economy was necessary because the population was too big to be supported by the alternative approach. Hmm, so the relationship is that the first thing is necessary because the condition of the second thing rules out alternatives."

Applying that relationship to the answer choices looks like this:

A. Is hunting necessary because of gathering? No.
B. Is irrigation needed for a farm in the desert? Yes.
C. Is accounting necessary because of marketing? No.
D. Is a sports stadium necessary because of athletic contests? No, although this one might make some folks hesitate and maybe keep it as a contender; ultimately, no, because athletic contests can happen in lots of other places besides sports stadiums. Stadiums are not the only option.
E. Are individual stones necessary because of a stone wall? Tricky question. Although stone walls do require lots of individual stones, it's not because there is no alternative. It's just the nature of stone walls to be made up of lots of individual stones. It's a different sort of relationship. The population isn't made up of the cattle economy! So, this one is also a No.

Prephrase by abstracting the relationship, and then match that relationship. That's how you do it!