LSAT Parallel Reasoning Questions
Overview
Parallel Reasoning Questions require you to identify an analogous situation which follows the same logical reasoning as the prompt.
Parallel Reasoning questions test your ability to distill arguments down to their basic logical structure. This allows you to determine the exact relationship between different factors so you can correctly identify the correct answer which preserves these connections. This skill is also tested, but in a less formal manner, in analogous situation questions in the Reading Comprehension section.
Many Parallel Reasoning questions often involve flawed reasoning questions. For these questions, some of the wrong answer choices will not involve flawed reasoning (and thus can be eliminated). It is also a good idea to keep certain common logical flaws in mind (such as mistaking cause for effect, confusing correlation with causation, circular reasoning, and false dilemmas) when answering these questions.
3-4 Parallel Reasoning questions will typically appear within the two Logical Reasoning sections on a given test.
Question Stem
A Parallel Reasoning Question stem typically asks for the answer choice which is most similar or parallel to the reasoning or logical structure in the argument. Flawed parallel reasoning questions will occasionally have stems that ask for the answer choice that mirrors the logical flaws of the original.
- Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
- The flawed reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which of the following?
- Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited by the argument above?
- The structure of the reasoning in the argument is most parallel to which one of the following?
Approach
Once you have identified the question as a Parallel Reasoning question, you should break it down into its basic logical structure. Keep the following in mind:
- Identify the number of factors and label them.
- Identify the relationship between these factors.
- Break down the argument into its logical structure.
- Look for the answer choice that has the same number of factors and the same relationships between them.
Tips
Be wary of answer choices that closely mirror the original in subject matter; test writers will often include these to try to trick you into picking the wrong answer.
Question 1
Carruthers has proposed 4-year term limits for members of the school board, many of whom have occupied their spots for over a decade. But an examination of Carruthers' record shows that he has held his seat on the school board for nearly 13 years; so Carruthers' proposal does not deserve our consideration.
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?
Explanation
Logical Structure:
- A person (Carruthers) has a proposal (4-year term limits) that negatively affects a certain subset of people (members of the school board, many of whom have occupied their seats for over a decade).
- That person is part of the same subset of people affected by the proposal.
- Conclusion: The proposal should not be considered.
The answer should describe a situation in which a proposal is dismissed because the person who offers it stands to be negatively affected by it.
Choice B: As in (1), the opinion of Adebayo, because he proposes to change the current policy in order to negatively affect a certain group (homeowners), is said to be not worthy of consideration because Adebayo is a member of that group. Choice B is correct.
Choice A: While this choice dismisses a proposal ("tax credits to local business owners") on the basis of the person who proposes it ("Szendrey owns a local business"), the proposal stands to benefit, not negatively affect, the person who offers the proposal.
Choice C: While this choice dismisses recommendations based on the person who offers it ("he has been found guilty of both malpractice and corruption"), the choice does not indicate that the recommendations would negatively affect the person making them, as in (2).
Choice D: While this choice dismisses a proposal ("select a certain legal firm") on the basis of the person who offers it ("Sperafico's cousin is a partner at that firm"), the proposal stands to affect a second party (Sperafico's cousin), not the person who offers the proposal. This proposal does not have adverse effects on the person who suggests it, while the proposal in the passage does.
Choice E: While this choice dismisses a proposal ("Mr. Pierre's comments on the management of our steel plant") on the basis of the person who offers it (Mr. Pierre, who "previously managed only banks and mini marts"), the proposal does not have a stated negative effect on the person who offers it, as in the passage's proposal.
Question 2
Strategists predict that an armed civil conflict will occur if the dissemination of separatist propaganda continues or if oppressed religious groups are not given more freedom. But the liberation of oppressed religious groups would lead to the continued dissemination of separatist propaganda. Therefore, armed civil conflict is inevitable.
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?
Explanation
Logical Structure:
- If X occurs (separatist propaganda continues) or if Y does not occur (oppressed groups are not given more freedom), then an outcome Z (armed civil conflict) will occur.
- If Y does occur, then X will occur.
- Conclusion: It is inevitable that Z will occur.
Symbolized:
- X or ~ Y → Z
- Y → X
- Conclusion: Z
The answer will mimic this structure by providing evidence that each of two conditions can guarantee an outcome and that if one condition doesn't hold then the other must, validly concluding from this that the outcome must occur.
Choice C: If X occurs ("automation of tasks increases") or Y does not occur ("worker satisfaction does not decline"), then an outcome Z ("productivity... will rise") occurs; this matches (1). If Y does occur, then X will also occur; this matches (2). Conclusion: Z must occur; this matches (3). Choice C is correct.
Choice A: While an outcome ("pollution will increase") is guaranteed by either of two conditions, the conclusion that it does not occur ("pollution will not increase") does not match the passage's conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, unlike the argument in the passage, the argument in the answer choice is flawed ( ~ X or ~ Y → Z; Y → X; therefore ~ Z).
Choice B: The evidence, "we will fail to recruit top talent," does not match (2), because it addresses only one of the two conditions rather than a relationship between them. Furthermore, the conclusion that an outcome will most likely occur does not match the passage's conclusion in (3) that Z will occur.
Choice D: The conclusion that an outcome guaranteed by either of two conditions does not occur ("the frequency... will not increase") does not match the passage's conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition ("threat of trade embargoes") that has no analogue in the original.
Choice E: The evidence that both of two conditions lead to an outcome (~ X and ~ Y → Z) does not match the passage's evidence (1) that either of two conditions lead to an outcome (X or ~ Y → Z). Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition ("lack of international political will") that has no analogue in the original.
Knewton on Twitter
Knewton on Facebook
Knewton Blog