This is a continuation of the Simple Guide on Parallel Reasoning Questions. I recommend familiarizing yourself with the concepts discussed there. Parallel Reasoning (PR) is often one of the most frustrating question types for students. Appearing roughly 1-2x/section and known for being time-consuming, many flag them for the end. The mindset often leads to neglecting to study them. Hopefully, this guide can convince you that timing can be notably improved with effort.
Table of Contents:
The hardest Parallel Reasoning questions aren’t going to have any curveballs we haven’t dealt with before. There are a few variables that drive difficulty: Sheer quantity of information, conditional/causal logic, and indistinguishable answer choices (ACs) that seem more like twins than sisters. Combine these, and the resulting process of elimination can drain our precious time.
All of these traits result in hard PR questions being a big test of our attention to detail, something a guide can’t help with. However, I will detail a framework for approaching these questions that enables us to solve them as efficiently as possible.
This guide will be top-down, where I will first provide a general overview of what I take to be best practices. I will narrow this down to frameworks for dealing with the stimulus and for answer choices. PR questions are some of the most learnable, or specifically, doing them faster is. Certain principles can notably increase speed without sacrificing accuracy.
While I see great variance in students’ approaches to PR questions, I think there is a strong case that some are objectively better. There are many ways to skin the cat of getting PR questions correct.
However, the consequence of a suboptimal approach is in timing. People wrongly view the time suck as inevitable. Practicing them can free up a few minutes per section, which leads to a raw score boost for most students.
A few FAQs:
1) These will never, ever play a role in the correctness of an AC:
1) Determine argument validity (Y/N)
2) Take the time to critically engage with the reasoning the author uses. You are going to get the time back and more on the ACs.
3) Importantly, map out the logical structure
4) You should be able to explain exactly how the argument gets to the conclusion.
5) Pay extra focus to any and all conditional & causal logic
We all know PR questions can be a timesink; efficiency is important. Process of elimination.
The correct AC will always match the stimulus in at least two ways:
1) Validity
2) Logical Structure
Now, after you have finished with the stimulus:
1) You should have a working understanding of the logical structure
2) Time to identify the wrong ACs as quickly as possible
3) Go through each AC 1-by-1 while “prephrasing” how the structure should look. This helps counter overcautious instincts
4) Any deviations from the logic you mapped out→ X it
5) Deviation from crucial aspects you mentally noted→ X it
6) Keep using our tools to eliminate. If your stimulus is logically valid, check the remaining ACs for validity
7) On hard questions, we are often still left with remaining ACs
8) The last step is to compare the premises for any key differences
I think this framework strikes the ideal balance as it provides guidelines but is flexible enough to take advantage of shortcuts when available. Try applying it here; the trap AC is selected more often than the correct one.
These are the main tools we have to keep track of a PR stimulus. By now, you have probably tried both, even if you haven’t heard the term “mnemonic” before. It is just any strategy used to remember something better. Here are some anecdotes that might give some guidance on how to determine what is best for you.
TL;DR: Both tools can be useful in different contexts. Try to determine which tool works in which context for you.
1) The goal: a balance of timing and accuracy
2) I did well with only mnemonics. However, convoluted conditional logic stimuli had me re-reading the stimulus 3+ times.
3) Mnemonics techniques to experiment with
Give these questions a try:
PR questions involving conditional and causal logic are frequently reported as the most time-consuming and frustrating. They are also the best way to test our ability to apply the framework outlined in this guide. There are no special tricks; navigating their complexity forces us to sharpen the fundamental skills outlined in this guide.
Parallel Flaw questions are a variant on PR that requires us to combine those skills with the ones involved in solving Flaw questions (simple guide and advanced guide). The important things to know are:
1) Finding (and matching) the Flaw is the #1 priority
2) For the most difficult Parallel Flaw questions, the strategies in this guide come into play more
