Here is an argument about a chemist.
Four of the five answer choices are also about chemists.
The credited answer is about a chess tournament, and those four chemistry answers
are the trap.
Hold on.
The answer that's on the same topic as the question is the wrong one?
On the family we're doing today, almost always.
By the end you'll know why same topic is a warning light, not a comfort.
But first, reach back one episode.
Quick retrieval from Episode 1.
What were the three parts of every argument skeleton?
Take a beat, try to name them before I do.
Conclusion, premises, and the assumption.
The bridge across the gap.
That skeleton is the whole engine today, because both of today's question families
are pure shape questions.
They don't care whether the argument is true.
They care about its structure, which is exactly the skeleton lens from Episode 1.
So here's the one objective.
By the end, you'll strip the topic off any argument and name its logical shape in
one sentence, fast enough to match two arguments about totally different subjects.
Three moves.
Move one, principle questions, both directions.
Move two, parallel reasoning, matching the shape.
Move three, parallel flaw, matching the shape and the mistake.
And the handle for all three is what, abstract to the shape?
Abstract to the shape.
Strip the topic, keep the structure.
Lock that phrase down now, because we lean on it the entire episode.
Picture a house rule on a fridge magnet.
A principle is just that, a general, transferable rule.
A case is one specific instance of it.
Here's the move people miss.
Principle questions run in two directions, and the stem tells you which one you're
in.
Two directions meaning which side I'm handed and which side I'm hunting for?
That's the split.
Direction A, identify the principle.
The stimulus hands you a specific judgment, and the answers are broad rules.
You ask, what general rule is this one judgment an instance of?
Direction B, apply the principle.
The stimulus hands you the broad rule, and the answers are specific cases.
You ask, which situation does this rule actually cover?
So a principle is a rule, a case is one example of the rule,
and the stem just tells me which one I'm holding and which one to go find.
That's the whole frame?
That's the frame.
Now the part naive courses get wrong, and this is the key point.
The word principle is not its own question type.
It rides on top of types you already know.
When you read a principle out of a case, that's just Must Be True or Most Strongly
Supported.
When the principle is used to justify a conclusion, that's Strengthen or Sufficient
Assumption.
When a principle is misapplied, that's a Flaw question.
The word principle only tells you a general rule connects to a specific case.
It doesn't tell you the task.
So if I invent a special principle technique, I'm building a tool for a question
that doesn't exist.
A tool for a phantom.
So here's the discipline.
Read the rest of the stem to learn the real task, then solve it with that type's
method.
Principle is a flavor, not a recipe.
Let's apply a principle, fully worked.
The rule.
You may skip chores only if you've finished all your homework.
Hear those two words, only if.
They mark finishing homework as the necessary condition.
So translate it into plain if-then.
If you skipped chores, then you must have finished your homework.
That's the only direction the rule runs.
Wait.
I want to read it as, if you finished your homework, then you're allowed to skip
chores.
Isn't that the same rule?
Defend it.
Walk me through why.
The rule links homework and skipping chores.
So finishing homework should buy you the right to skip.
Finished homework, therefore skip allowed.
That feels airtight to me.
It feels airtight, and it's wrong, and this is the single most tested error on the
section.
Only if marks a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
Finishing homework is required in order to skip chores.
It does not, by itself, grant permission.
A parent can say, yes you finished everything, now do the dishes anyway,
and the rule is not broken.
You treated a necessary condition as if it were sufficient.
So the rule only fires one way.
It tells me what must have been true if someone skipped, not what someone gets to do
once homework's done.
Now you own it, and it sticks harder because you were certain a second ago.
So test two cases against the rule.
Case one, a kid finished homework but did chores anyway.
Does the rule judge her?
No.
The rule only restricts skipping, and doing chores is never a violation.
Case two, a kid skipped chores without finishing homework.
There's your one true violation.
That's the only situation the rule actually governs.
On the test, the trap answer will share the topic, chores and homework,
but never actually trip the trigger.
Or it'll flip sufficiency and necessity, exactly the way you just did.
Now parallel reasoning.
The task.
Find the answer whose argument has the same logical shape as the stimulus,
no matter the subject.
So what is a shape?
Picture four molds.
A conditional chain, A leads to B leads to C.
A causal claim, X caused Y.
An analogy, these two things are alike, so what's true of one is true of the other.
And a generalization, these samples, therefore the whole.
The topic is irrelevant.
Only the mold counts.
Give me two on different topics so I can hear them rhyme.
Here's the stimulus.
If the cafe is out of oat milk, I get tea.
If I get tea, I skip the pastry.
The cafe is out of oat milk, so I'll skip the pastry.
Abstract it.
A leads to B, B leads to C, A is true, therefore C.
A clean, valid conditional chain.
And a correct parallel can be about anything, as long as it's that same chain?
Anything.
Watch.
If the thermostat reads above seventy, the fan switches on.
If the fan switches on, the vent opens.
The thermostat reads above seventy, so the vent opens.
Different world entirely, oat milk versus a vent.
Your turn, say why it matches.
Because it's the same chain.
A leads to B, B leads to C, we're told A, so we land on C.
Identical skeleton.
The topic is just paint.
Now here's the checklist, and the order matters because it buys you time.
Move one, match the conclusion first, its strength and its quantifier.
Must versus probably versus should versus most.
That's your fastest filter, so be ruthless with it.
Move two, match the premises, how many and how they combine.
Move three, match validity.
A valid stimulus needs a valid answer, and an invalid one needs an equally invalid
answer.
Run the conclusion filter on me.
Say the oat milk argument ended in, so I'll probably skip the pastry,
and an answer ends in, so the vent must open.
Dead?
Dead on sight.
Probably is not must.
You eliminate that answer without reading a single one of its premises.
That's the whole payoff of matching conclusions first.
You kill answers in seconds instead of diagramming all five.
Parallel flaw is parallel reasoning plus a named error.
One difference, and it's everything.
The stimulus is always broken.
The right answer has to reproduce both the same structure and the same specific
mistake.
So step one is the Episode 1 instinct.
Where's the gap, and what kind of gap?
Name it in the abstract.
Step two, find the answer that makes that exact error on a different topic.
Before you solve it, make me do the interleaving move.
Which question type is this even, so I pick the right method?
That discrimination is the real skill, so do it.
Here's the stimulus.
Everyone I know who drinks green smoothies is energetic, so green smoothies must
cause energy.
First, name the type and the flaw.
It's a parallel flaw, and the flaw is the correlation-to-causation jump we hit a
couple episodes back.
They saw two things show up together and decided one causes the other.
Maybe energetic people just happen to like green smoothies.
Stated abstractly, concludes a causal claim from mere correlation.
Now two answers, and pause to pick before I tell you.
Answer one, same health topic.
People who eat more fiber report better digestion, and the study controlled for
other factors, so fiber likely improves digestion.
Answer two, totally unrelated.
Everyone I know who owns running shoes has run a marathon, so running shoes must
cause people to run marathons.
Pick one, then I'll talk.
I'll take answer one.
It's food and health, same lane as smoothies, and it's making a causal claim too.
Feels like the match.
And that's the trap closing on you.
Answer one shares the topic, but look at the shape.
It controlled for other factors, and it only says likely.
That's a careful, basically valid argument.
On a parallel flaw question, a valid answer is automatically wrong,
because it doesn't reproduce the mistake.
You quietly fixed the stimulus in your head and went hunting for a clean argument to
match it.
So it's answer two, the running shoes, even though it sounds nothing like smoothies.
Answer two.
It saw a correlation, owning shoes and running marathons, and leapt straight to
causation.
Same broken shape, new paint.
The topic flipped completely, and that flip is the tell.
Same topic is the decoy.
The unrelated topic is usually where the credited answer hides.
So back to your chemist and the chess tournament from the top.
The four chemistry answers were paint, and the chess answer had the matching shape.
That's the entire con.
The test writer dresses a wrong shape in the right topic and bets you grab it on
familiarity.
So here's the heuristic, and I want it to be the last thing you carry out.
Abstract to the shape.
Strip the topic, keep the structure.
One more time.
Strip the topic, keep the structure.
When two arguments wear different clothes but make the same moves,
they are the same argument.
And for principle, I read the rest of the stem so I solve it as the type it actually
is.
Because principle is a flavor, not a recipe.
One piece of triage before we go.
These questions are accurate but slow, since you have to read five full arguments.
So abstract into plain words instead of diagramming everything,
run the conclusion-match pass first, and when time's tight,
flag and return.
They're prime skip-and-come-back candidates.
Between now and next time, open the practice bank, do five parallel questions,
and force yourself to write the shape of each stimulus in one sentence before you
even look at the answers.
Next episode, we stop matching arguments and start describing them.
The describe-the-argument family.
Method of reasoning, role of a claim, and point at issue.
Three questions that ask not whether the argument works, but what job each sentence
is doing inside it.
Bring the skeleton.
We're going to label every bone.