3.11 - Parallel Reasoning

In this lesson, we're covering everyone's (least) favorite question type: Parallel Reasoning. These long-winded questions take a bit to read and can be tougher for newer students. But with a little practice, we'll have you spotting the matching argument in no time.

These questions come down to understanding each argument part present in the passage and whether those parts lead to a good argument or a bad one.

You can usually spot a Parallel question from its larger-than-average answer choices. If not, they tend to look like this:

• The pattern of reasoning in the argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?
• Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the argument presented?

Beware, Parallel Flaw questions occasionally present themselves the same way. That is, the question may not explicitly call out that the passage contains flawed reasoning. Read carefully.

Let's check out some examples.

Examples

June 2007 PrepTest, Section 2, Question 12

Here's Question 12 from Test J, Section 2:

Suppose I have promised to keep a confidence and someone asks me a question that I cannot answer truthfully without thereby breaking the promise. Obviously, I cannot both keep and break the same promise. Therefore, one cannot be obliged both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises.

Start with the conclusion: we can't be obliged to answer all questions truthfully (I'll call this B) and to keep every promise (I'll call this A).

What's the support for this conclusion? The author uses a hypothetical situation to illustrate that we're occasionally in circumstances where doing B means doing not A. The author then follows up with the obvious: that we can't obviously do B and not-B simultaneously. That does it for the argument's anatomy.

But there's also this undercurrent of obligation to address. To be correct, the answer choice will need to address obligation in some way. It might be necessity, or law, or some other idea parallel to obligation, but we need it in there.

I'm predicting the parallel argument will be something like, "We said we'd do A, but there may be a circumstance whereby doing B (something we're obligated to do) we may not be able to keep our word. Therefore, we can't do both A and B in every situation." Now, this won't match an answer choice verbatim, but it gives us a working template to go find the answer.

A does just that. It reads:

It is claimed that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want. It is also claimed that we have the obligation to be civil to others. But civility requires that we not always say what we want. So, it cannot be true both that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want and that we have the duty to be civil.

The "unencumbered right" bit is a nice stand-in for A, whereas "the obligation to be civil" replaces B. Then, we get a conflict between them: "...civility requires that we not always say what we want." In other words, B occasionally requires not-A. Then, we get a matching conclusion: "So, it cannot be true both that we have [A] and that we have the duty to be [B]." Spot-on.

PrepTest 73, Section 2, Question 17

Let's try another, this time Question 17 from Test 73, Section 2:

If Suarez is not the most qualified of the candidates for sheriff, then Anderson is. Thus, if the most qualified candidate is elected and Suarez is not elected, then Anderson will be.

This one's pretty straightforward. The only person more qualified than S is A. So, if the most qualified gets elected, and it's not S, it's A.

The correct answer will need to say something like, "If A isn't the most/greatest at something, B is. Therefore, if the most/greatest thing occurs, and it doesn't involve A, it involves B."

B turns out to be a near verbatim match:

If the lowest bidder on the sanitation contract is not Dillon, then it is Ramsey. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Dillon, then it will go to Ramsey.

In my rephrased argument above, you could replace A with Dillon, B with Ramsey, and lowest contract bidder with the most/greatest thing. Perfectly parallel argument.

---

That does it for the Parallel boogeyman. Hopefully you find these questions a little less intimidating. If not, keep practicing! You'll get there. See you in our next lesson where we shift from Parallel Reasoning to Parallel Principles.