- Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:45 pm
Great question, and let's get right to the gist: when it comes to parallel problems such as these, you need to identify and extract the key components and describe their relationship in an abstract manner. Do not overly complicate your work with unnecessary details. Instead, focus on the mechanics of how the different components of the situation relate to one another.
For instance, here we know that the cosmologists have been unable to discover the entirety of what makes up the missing dark matter. However, they are convinced that even an incremental or partial explanation is advancing their attempt to explain the missing dark matter.
Now, translate this scenario into a more mechanical, abstract form without sacrificing the key relationships. Such prephrasing might look like this:
Person not able to achieve entire goal but views partial progress as positive step toward goal.
Now match this prephrasing with the answer choices.
Answer choice A lacks this "partial" quality. You could respond that the book itself is a partial step towards understanding chess, but such a book in fact might hold all the information necessary to learn how to play chess. Thus, this answer choice does not offer a good match.
Answer choice D presents a scenario in which the child is not able to achieve his goal outright (having enough to go to the movie) but instead receives only part and will need to seek more to achieve his desired outcome.
Notice here that the key distinction is not between "giving" and "discovering" but in the core relationship between the parts. Start with a skeletal outline of the structure of the situation. Then, if need be, proceed to give a more detailed description of the stimulus to be paralleled. Go from simple to complex without sacrificing the essentials.
I hope this helps.