Yeaaah. You know exactly what I’m talking about. Those questions that seem to terrify a not-so-insignificant chunk of the test taking populace. The ones that, as you turn the page cause you to wonder, if only for a moment, whether you accidentally stumbled into a Reading Comprehension passage.

Of course, that doesn’t last long and, almost instinctively, you skip over to the next question that doesn’t take up approximately half the page. I mean, it makes sense right? Why bother reading what could pass off for a small country’s entire constitution, when in that time, you can run through at least two or three of the next questions? Maybe even take a short nap?

Well, actually… yeah – that does make sense. Well, minus the nap, that’s just not a good idea — at all. But Parallel Reasoning questions do tend to be time consuming, and if you’re in a crunch for time, skipping them over (even if only to come back to them later) actually could be a wise use of what little time you do have. All that said though, Parallel Reasoning questions aren’t necessarily harder, and with the right approach, they can actually be quite simple.

Let’s first go over the basics. Parallel Reasoning questions require you to… well, parallel the reasoning. This means that logically speaking, the correct answer choice must reach its conclusion in the exact same manner. That means it must rest on the same kind and same number of premises, which are then linked to whatever intermediate conclusions may be there in the same way, which will always lead to the conclusion by the same process. What the correct answer doesn’t have to do is state everything in the same order, so avoid letting that throw you off.

So what now? Well, we start eliminating. What I find to be the most efficient criteria for these questions is to first go by their respective conclusions. We know that the right answer has to reach its conclusion in the same manner, but we also know the right answer has to reach the same kind of conclusion. That means the force and form of the correct answer’s conclusion must match that of the original argument. That means that if the original argument stated ‘Therefore, Jerry must have visited the convenience store’, answer choices (C) and (E), which respectively concluded that, ‘Therefore, Robin is most likely to draw a picture of a dinosaur’ and ‘Therefore, Robin must have drawn a dinosaur, else she drew nothing’, are both wrong.

This process will usually kick off at least one answer choice, but quite often as many as two or three (if you’re lucky, an occasional four), and it will do it relatively quickly. The rest of the way, you’re probably going to have to do some work. From here on out, you’re essentially looking to set out how the argument specifically reached its conclusion, and knock off any answer choices that don’t exactly match that method. Just keep in mind, the ordering of the statements does not have to be parallel, so that’s not a reason to knock off an answer choice. On the easier questions, it will be, but on the harder ones, there’s a good chance it won’t.

Let’s put this to the test. See what you can do with this, and see below for a breakdown:

The only known distributor of Pokémon cards happens to be ‘Distribu-City’. As a result, considering the fact that Belinda only collects Pokémon cards, it’s highly improbable that she’ll ever collect any cards that weren’t originally distributed by ‘Distribu-City’.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

(A)    The ‘Intensity’ room at ‘Extreme-Gym’ has quite a few ‘Super-Training’ machines available. Because Jeremy would never exercise using any other machine at ‘Extreme’, Jeremy will probably never use many machines outside the ‘Intensity’ room.

(B)    Every ‘Super-Training’ machine at ‘Extreme-Gym’ is located in the ‘Intensity’ room. The only person to use these machines is Jeremy. Therefore, Jeremy may never use any machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room.

(C)    The only machines known to exist in the ‘Intensity’ room of ‘Extreme-Gym’ are the ‘Super-Training’ machines. The only machine Jeremy would ever use at ‘Extreme-Gym’ is the ‘Super-Training’ machine. Therefore, he’s unlikely to use a machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room.

(D)    The only ‘Super-Training’ machines known to be in ‘Extreme-Gym’ are located in the ‘Intensity’ room. Jeremy would never use anything other than a ‘Super-Training’ at ‘Extreme-Gym’, so he’s probably never going to use a machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room.

(E)    Every ‘Super-Training’ machine in ‘Extreme-Gym’ is located in the ‘Intensity’ room. Jeremy is not known to use anything other than a ‘Super-Training’ machines located in ‘Extreme-Gym’. Thus, Jeremy will not use any machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room.

So, first we compare the conclusions. The original argument’s conclusion was: ‘it’s highly improbable that she’ll ever collect any cards that weren’t originally distributed by ‘Distribu-City’‘.

(A) Conclusion: ‘Jeremy will probably never use many machines outside the ‘Intensity’ room‘.

But – the original argument stated it’s highly improbable that she’ll ever collect any cards. Not that it’s improbable that she’ll ever collect many cards. The two conclude with different force, (A) is out.

(B) Conclusion: ‘Therefore, Jeremy may never use any machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room‘.

May never use…? The original argument stated that it’s not just a possibility – but that it’s improbable. (B) is out.

(C) Conclusion: ‘Therefore, he’s unlikely to use a machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room‘.

Highly improbable vs. unlikely is fair, and it’s otherwise absolute, just like the original. We’ll keep (C).

(D) Conclusion: ‘…so he’s probably never going to use a machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room‘.

Same as above. Force of statements is similar in terms of ‘unlikely’ and ‘never’. We’ll keep (D).

(E) Conclusion: ‘Thus, Jeremy will not use any machine outside the ‘Intensity’ room‘.

Well, it’s absolute – but too absolute. The original argument stated this is ‘highly improbable’, not that it won’t happen. (E) is out.

So, now we’re down to (C) and (D). Well, the original argument concluded she probably won’t collect any cards that weren’t distributed by ‘Distribu-City’, because she only collects Pokémon cards, and they happen to be the only known distributer. Because she only collects one type (Pokémon) of item (Cards), and there is only one known source (Distribu-city) for such a type of item, she’s probably going to get it from that source. It’s worth noting that this is actually a reasonable conclusion.

(C) tells us that the Intensity room is only known to have Super-Training machines, and since Jeremy only uses those kinds of machines, he’s unlikely to use machines outside that room. In other words, since a source (Intensity) only has one type (Super-Training) of item (Machine), and since he only uses that one type of item, he must go to that source. But wait, is that the same reasoning? In fact, does that even hold? Just because the Intensity room *only* has Super-Training, does this necessarily mean that Jeremy will likely go there? The original argument noted this was *the only place* to find such an item. This argument notes that this place *only carries that item*. Jeremy could just as easily go elsewhere to find Super-Training machines. (C) is out.

(D) correctly notes that the *only* such known machines can be found in the Intensity room. Since Jeremy would only use such machines, it’s unlikely that he would use a machine outside that room. Credited response is (D).

Largely, the take home message here is that while Parallel Reasoning questions can be time consuming, they’re not always necessarily difficult, and with some aggressive discrimination, the workload they bring can be substantially reduced. Thus providing you with more time to nap. Actually no — still not a very good idea. At all.

– John