Subscription pricing
hello all.
I am consistently finding myself struggling with parallel/parallel flaw questions. My initial move was to just go slower on them. But that only helped marginally.
I'm going to buy a grouping set of them from Manhattan. But do you all have any tips/suggestions for them?
0
5 comments
It really depends on the intricacy of the logic in the stimulus. If it's really involved with multiple necessary and sufficient conditions, or multiple some and most statements combining together with conditionals to form a conclusion, then I might map it out to be sure that the logic matches up. But if it's relatively straightforward then I don't waste the time.
I usually do a quick diagram of the stimulus (for PR) and then go through the answer choices. Some are pretty easy to see as you move through them.
For PF, I usually just try and paraphrase what the flaw is and keep that in mind as I move through the choices.
@coreyjanson479
I suggest diagramming them at least in review. You may not be quick enough to diagram then yet under timed conditions-- a lot of them you can be solved in your head under a time crunch. But you should learn how to diagram them well, and then you'll be able to start doing it under timed conditions, and you'll never miss one. Parallel reasoning is about as reliable as Logic Games-- you can essentially be 100% that you got it right.
Thanks for the advice!
Do you (or other high scorers) diagram the questions/answers??
Really focus in on the form that the conclusion takes. If it's definitive in the stimulus then it must also be in the answer. This is also true for probabilistic conclusions, cause/effect, etc. Many times you can eliminate answers just off of that. Also, pay attention to logical indicators and try to match those up as well (just be aware that "no" is the same as "all...not", some and many are interchangeable etc.). Finally, try to put in your own terms how the argument is constructed so that you have a really good idea of what you're looking for.
Good luck!