when to use abstraction technique in parallel reasoning

[lathlee]

Hi. Staff and Dave,

i am so sorry to ask this question since Dave kindly remarked me that I spend too much time in conditional reasoning and this question involves some aspect of parallel reasoning.

in LRB , and as well as lessons, when solving parallel reasoning, the lesson states that when all else fails as in all other available options fail, then use abstraction questions to solve the questions.

Now, in the power-score lessons pg 8-3 Q 2, The best way to write a good detective story is to work ...

and 8-4 Q4, The fact that politicians in a certain country are trying to reduce government spending does not.

These two questions contain conditional reasoning indicators, in Q2. and then in second last line,

in Q 4 ,if instead they had cut back.

Now, Dave informed to his students and to me that there are many LSAT question stems that contain conditional reasoning indicators but they do not play a big role or sometime non role at all solving a question relate to these LSAT question stems.

but in parallel reasoning questions, Dave also informed that all else fails, then use abstraction technique.

I am currently on the mission of going over the questions that I got wrong prior before and this question naturally popped in my head by getting these two questions wrong. :

Then when would be the appropriate moment to use abstraction technique. cuz if i see conditional reasoning indicators, shouldn't i try to look for an answer to parallel ? since if i see a conditional reasoning indicator in question stem, that qualifies as "I did not look through all available options, aka, in this case, conditional reasoning matching"

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Lathlee,

Instead of thinking about how to attack these questions as having ordered steps 1-2-3-4 and so on, think about it instead as if you are being asked to identify a car that you only saw for a moment. How would you do that? Well, it would depend on the car, wouldn't it? You'd typically start with what you saw as the most distinctive features, however. For example, an orange car is something unusual, and you would likely begin by saying the car was orange. On the other hand, maybe the car is a Ferrari, and so instead you noted the manufacturer. Or may be it was an extremely old car, and so you start there. Or it could be how large or small the car is, and so on. In other words, you don't always start at the same spot, but instead you gravitate towards what jumps out at you the most. Parallel Reasoning questions are the same way: you are looking for what is most distinctive in each stimulus, and so in one case that might be the use of conditional reasoning whereas in another case it might be the force of the conclusion, and in another case it might be an unusual abstract organization. This variety is both what makes Parallel questions difficult, but also that which makes them easy to solve once you stop trying to do it in a specific order. There is no order, only what is most unusual about the stimulus itself, and that naturally changes from question to question

Thanks!

[lathlee]

Geat answer always. Thank you so much sir