Parallel Reasoning Question Problem Set & Answer Key

Parallel Reasoning Question Problem Set Answer Key
1. The student body at this university takes courses in a wide range of disciplines. Miriam is a student at this university, so she takes courses in a wide range of disciplines.
Which one of the following arguments exhibits
flawed reasoning most similar to that exhibited by
the argument above?
(A) The students at this school take mathematics.
Miguel is a student at this school, so he takes
mathematics.
(B) The editorial board of this law journal has
written on many legal issues. Louise is on the
editorial board, so she has written on many
legal issues.
(C) The component parts of bulldozers are heavy.
This machine is a bulldozer, so it is heavy.
(D) All older automobiles need frequent oil
changes. This car is new, so its oil need not
be changed as frequently.
(E) The individual cells of the brain are incapable
of thinking. Therefore, the brain as a whole is
incapable of thinking.
2. Commentator: Because of teacher hiring freezes, the quality of education in that country will not improve. Thus, it will surely deteriorate.
The flawed reasoning in which one of the following
is most similar to that in the commentator’s
argument?
(A) Because Raoul is a vegetarian, he will not have
the pepperoni pizza for lunch. It follows that
he will have the cheese pizza.
(B) Given that over 250 years of attempts to prove
the Goldbach conjecture have failed, it will
probably never be proved. Hence, it is more
likely to be disproved than proved.
(C) Since funding levels for social programs are
being frozen, our society will not become
more harmonious. Thus, it may become more
discordant.
(D) Since there is a storm moving in, the outside
temperature cannot rise this afternoon.
Therefore, it must fall.
(E) The starter in Mary’s car gave out weeks ago,
and so it is impossible for the car to start.
Therefore, it will not start.
3. Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly. In Hallstown most people shop for groceries no more than three times a month. Therefore, in Hallstown most people buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.
Which one of the following arguments has a flawed
pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning
in the argument above?
(A) It is clear that most drivers in West Ansland are
safe drivers since there are very few driving
accidents in West Ansland and most
accidents there are not serious.
(B) It is clear that John cannot drive, since he does
not own a car and no one in his family who
does not own a car can drive.
(C) It is clear that Fernando’s friends usually drive
to school, since all of his friends can drive
and all of his friends go to school.
(D) It is clear that most people in Highland County
drive sedans, since most people who
commute to work drive sedans and most
people in Highland County commute to
work.
(E) It is clear that most of Janine’s friends are good
drivers, since she accepts rides only from
good drivers and she accepts rides from most
of her friends.
4. Bank deposits are credited on the date of the transaction only when they are made before 3 P.M. Alicia knows that the bank deposit was made before 3 P.M. So, Alicia knows that the bank deposit was credited on the date of the transaction.
Which one of the following exhibits both of the
logical flaws exhibited by the argument above?
(A) Journalists are the only ones who will be
permitted to ask questions at the press
conference. Since Marjorie is a journalist, she
will be permitted to ask questions.
(B) We know that Patrice works only on Thursday.
Today is Thursday, so it follows that Patrice
is working today.
(C) It is clear that George knows he will be
promoted to shift supervisor, because George
will be promoted to shift supervisor only if
Helen resigns, and George knows Helen will
resign.
(D) John believes that 4 is a prime number and that
4 is divisible by 2. Hence John believes that
there is a prime number divisible by 2.
(E) Pat wants to become a social worker. It is well
known that social workers are poorly paid.
Pat apparently wants to be poorly paid.
Parallel Reasoning Question Problem Set Answer Key

Solving Parallel Reasoning Questions

Because you must find the answer with a similar pattern of reasoning to that in
the stimulus, using the details of the stimulus to attack the answer choices works
differently in Parallel Reasoning question than in other First Family questions.
For example, The Fact Test plays a minimal role in Parallel questions because
the details (topic, etc.) of the stimulus and each answer choice are different.
Instead, the structural basis of these questions forces you to compare the bigpicture
elements of the argument: intent of the conclusion, force and use of the
premises, the relationship of the premises and the conclusion, and the soundness
of the argument. Comparing these elements is like using an Abstract Fact Test—
you must examine the general features of the argument in the answer choice and
match them to the argument in the stimulus.
First, let us examine the elements of an argument that do not need to be
paralleled in these questions:
1. Topic of the stimulus
In Parallel Reasoning questions, the topic or subject matter in the
stimulus and the answer choices is irrelevant because you are looking
for the argument that has a similar pattern of reasoning. Often, samesubject
answer choices are used to attract the student who fails to focus
on the reasoning in the stimulus. For example, if the topic of the
stimulus is banking, you need not have an answer choice that is also
about banking.
2. The order of presentation of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus
The order of presentation of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus
is also irrelevant. As long as an answer choice contains the same general
parts as the stimulus, they need not be in the same order because the
order of presentation does not affect the logical relationship that
underlies the pieces. So, for example, if the stimulus has an order of
conclusion-premise-premise, you need not have the same order in the
correct answer.
Neither of the elements above has any bearing on the correctness of an answer
choice. Now, let’s look at the elements that must be paralleled, and how to use
these elements to eliminate wrong answer choices:
1. The Method of Reasoning
It may sound obvious, but the type of reasoning used in the stimulus
must be paralleled. When you see an identifiable form of reasoning
present—for example, causal reasoning or conditional reasoning—you
can proceed quickly and look for the answer that matches the form of
the stimulus. Given the numerous forms of reasoning we have examined
(both valid and invalid), you now have a powerful arsenal of knowledge
that you can use to attack these questions. First and foremost, if you
recognize the form of reasoning used in the stimulus, immediately attack
the answers and search for the answer with similar reasoning.
2. The Validity of the Argument
The validity of the reasoning in the correct answer choice must match
the validity of the reasoning in the stimulus.
Often, answer choices can be eliminated because they contain reasoning
that has a different logical force than the stimulus. If the stimulus
contains valid reasoning, eliminate any answer choice that contains
invalid reasoning. If the stimulus contains invalid reasoning, eliminate
any answer choice that contains valid reasoning.
3. The Conclusion
Every Parallel Reasoning stimulus contains an argument and therefore a
conclusion. Because your job is to parallel the argument, you must
parallel the subcomponents, including the premises and conclusion. You
can use this knowledge to attack specific answer choices: if an answer
has a conclusion that does not “match” the conclusion in the stimulus,
then the answer is incorrect. Using this approach is especially helpful if
you do not see an identifiable form of reasoning in the stimulus.
When matching conclusions, you must match the certainty level or
intent of the conclusion in the stimulus, not necessarily the specific
wording of the conclusion. For example, a stimulus conclusion
containing absolutes (“must,” “never,” “always”) will be matched by a
conclusion in the correct answer choice using similar absolutes; a
stimulus conclusion that gives an opinion (“should”) will be matched by
the same idea in the correct answer choice; a conditional conclusion in
the stimulus will be matched by a conditional conclusion in the correct
answer choice, and so on. This knowledge allows you to quickly
narrow down the answer choices to the most likely candidates. This
advice can initially be confusing, so let us discuss it in more detail.
Contenders (assuming there is no other reason to knock them out of
contention). Identical wording for our purposes means answers where
the controlling modifiers (such as “must,” “could,” “many,” “some,”
“never,” etcetera) are the same. For example, if the conclusion of the
argument stated, “The reactor can supply the city power grid,” an
answer that had similar wording, such as “The bank can meet the needs
of customers,” would be a Contender. In brief, the advice in this
paragraph is fairly simple: if the conclusion in the answer choice has
similar wording to the conclusion in the stimulus, then the answer is
possibly correct.
Second, because there are many synonyms available for the test makers
to use, do not eliminate answers just because the wording is not
identical. For example, an answer could state, “The majority of voters
endorsed the amendment.” The quantity indicator in the sentence—
“majority”—has several synonyms, such as “most” and “more than
half.” Make sure that when you examine each sentence that you do not
eliminate an answer that has wording that is functionally identical to the
wording in the stimulus.
Third, remember that the English language has many pairs of natural
opposites, so the presence of a negative term in the stimulus is not
grounds for dismissing the answer when the stimulus has positive
language (and vice versa). For example, a conclusion could state, “The
councilmember must be present at the meeting.” That conclusion could
just as easily have been worded as, “The councilmember must not be
absent from the meeting.” In the same way, an answer choice can use
opposite language (including negatives) but still have a meaning that is
similar to the stimulus.
If the stimulus has a positive conclusion, then the presence of negative
terms in the conclusion is not grounds for eliminating the answer; if the
stimulus has a negative conclusion, then the lack of a negative term in
the conclusion is not grounds for eliminating the answer.
4. The Premises
Like the conclusion, the premises in the correct answer choice must
match the premises in the stimulus, and the same wording rules that
were discussed in The Conclusion section apply to the premises.
Matching premises is a step to take after you have checked the
conclusion, unless you notice that one (or more) of the premises has an
unusual role in the argument. If so, you can immediately look at the
answer choices and compare premises.
Because the four components above must be paralleled in the correct answer
choice, the test makers have an array of options for making an answer incorrect.
They can create answer choices that match several of the elements but not all of
the elements, and to work through each answer choice in traditional fashion can
be a painstaking process. However, since each element must be matched, you
can analyze and attack the answer choices by testing whether the answer choice
under consideration matches certain elements in the stimulus. If not, the answer
is incorrect.
Upon hearing this advice, most students say, “Sounds good. In what order
should I examine at the elements?” Although the process can be reduced to a
step-by-step procedure, a better approach is to realize that examining the
elements is like a waterfall and that everything will happen very quickly.
Performing well on the LSAT is about flexibility and correctly responding to the
clues provided. Rigidly applying the methods below will rob you of the
opportunity to accelerate through the problem. Therefore, in Parallel Reasoning
questions your job is to identify the features of the argument most likely to be
“points of separation”—those features that can be used to divide answers into
Losers and Contenders. Sometimes matching the conclusion will knock out
several answer choices, other times matching the premises will achieve that
same goal. The following list outlines the four tests you can use to evaluate
answers, in rough order of their usefulness:
1. Match the Method of Reasoning
If you identify an obvious form of reasoning (use of analogy, circular
reasoning, conditional reasoning, etc.), move quickly to the answer
choices and look for the answer with an identical form of reasoning.
2. Match the Conclusion
If you cannot identify the form of reasoning, or if you still have two or
more answer choices in contention after matching the reasoning, or if
the conclusion seems to have unusual language, examine the conclusion
of each answer choice and match it against the conclusion in the
stimulus. Matching the conclusion can be a critical time-saver because it
often eliminates one or more answers. On occasion, all five conclusions
in the answer choices will be identical to that in the stimulus. That is not
a problem—it just means that the other elements must be used to knock
out the wrong answers.
The key to successfully matching the conclusion is that you must be
able to quickly pick out the conclusion in each answer choice. This is
where the conclusion identification skills discussed in Chapter Two
come into play.
3. Match the Premises
If matching the method of reasoning and conclusion does not eliminate
the four wrong answer choices, try matching the premises. The more
complex the argument structure in the stimulus, the more likely you will
have to match the premises to arrive at the correct answer. The less
complex the argument, the more likely that matching the conclusion will
be effective.
4. Match the Validity of the Argument
Always make sure to eliminate any answer choice that does not match
the logical force (valid or invalid) of the argument. This test rarely
eliminates all four answers, but it can often eliminate one or two answer
choices.
Now practice applying these elements. Please take a moment to complete the
following problem:

Parallel Reasoning Questions

Parallel Reasoning questions ask you to identify the answer choice that contains
reasoning most similar in structure to the reasoning in the stimulus. Since this
task requires you to first identify the method of argumentation used by the
author and then to match that reasoning to the reasoning presented in each
answer choice, these questions can be quite time consuming (a fact known to
and exploited by the test makers).
Like Method of Reasoning and Flaw in the Reasoning questions, Parallel
Reasoning questions are in the First Family and have the same information
structure. However, because of the abstract nature of these questions, comparing
the stimulus to the answer choices takes on a different dimension, and we will
address this issue in a moment in the section entitled Solving Parallel Reasoning
Questions.
Question stem examples:
“Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to
the reasoning in the argument above?”
“Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar
to that exhibited by the argument above?”
“Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its logical
features to the argument above?”
“Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of
reasoning to the argument above?”
“The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most parallel to
that in which one of the following?”