S2E13: Parallels, Gap Years, and Discussing Your Past in Your Essay

In this episode, Shana and season 2 cohost Trudel discuss Parallel the Reasoning and Parallel the Flaw Questions. The pair also bust a pesky myth about not discussing events that happened before college in your personal statement, and also discuss why it can be a great idea to take a gap year, or two, or even more. 

Your goal for Parallel the Reasoning questions is to first establish the inductive reasoning of the stimulus.

Is it a causal, analogous, or data sampling argument structure?

Is it based on abductive reasoning,7,] requiring you to follow multiple steps in a line of reasoning to reach a probable conclusion?

Or does it establish a general rule, and an exception to that rule?

Answering those questions will allow you to establish how the argument is reasoned.

Then, you’re ready to find the argument’s parallel. Consider that the correct answer choice will be an analogous form of reasoning to the original argument (or stimulus).

Parallel arguments are, in a way, analogous. They rely on the assumption that the two scenarios (the original argument and the correct answer choice) must be similar with respect to their reasoning and argument structure.

Example: Suppose the reasoning of the argument is “making the case for the conclusion of one argument by showing the argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument.”

Then the correct answer choice must be similar with respect to that type of reasoning.

An incorrect answer choice will state a different method of reasoning (i.e developing a case or attempting to show that a piece of reasoning is incorrect).

Mnemonic: MITS

The MITS mnemonic is designed to ensure you that you have checked for the different ways that the argument and the answer choice must parallel:

M Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, that/which phrases)

I Intensifiers (degree of likelihood and degree of certainty language from the inference lessons) 7 Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. This is different than deductive reasoning, which yields a definite and verifiable conclusion. You will use deductive reasoning in the Logic Games section.

T Transition words [conjunctions (correlative; subordinating; coordinating), as well as transition words that denote cause/effect or illustration]

S Structure (ensuring that roles are in the same place in the reasoning of the argument, and that any logical or conditional sequences go in the same direction and are not reversals (the converse of an implication). Only contrapositives will maintain the same structure.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at [e-mail].

Like what you hear? Leave us a review!