LSAT 150 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q15

RC Question 15 Explanation

DISCUSSION: Before answering a question like this, you should at least skim the key words in the second paragraph to see what it was about. It starts with “Those skeptical of dowsing’s efficacy” and ends with “Finally, skeptics note,”

You can also look at paragraph 3. It starts with “Proponents of dowsing point out”. So, paragraph 2 serves to described skeptics objections to dowsing, which are then rebutted in the rest of the passage.

You shouldn’t only be getting that from the skim of course. From reading the passage you should know that the main point is to argue dowsing is real. Therefore, seeing paragraph 2 presents skeptics views, you can know the author disagrees with it.

___________

1. Not at all. The first paragraph described how to dowse. The second paragraph argued dowsing is rubbish. That’s not “adding detail”, it’s disagreeing.
2. Which two perspectives? Paragraph two only describes the perspectives of the skeptics. You can see it in the key words: “Those skeptical”, “they assert”, “Further, skeptics say”, “Finally, skeptics note”. It’s all continuation of the same argument from skeptics.
    
   If I say “law is good”, and I give you five reasons, I’m not giving you first perspectives on law. I’m giving you my perspective, backed up by five arguments. Similarly, the perspective here is “dowsing is unfounded”, backed up by several points.
3. CORRECT. See the analysis above. Paragraph two is the skeptics arguments. In paragraph 3, dowsing proponents argue that these objections are unwarranted.
4. The main claim in paragraph 1 is that dowsing is a technique to find stuff underground. Paragraph 2 doesn’t explore this claim, it argues against it.
    
   Whatever claim you may have thought paragraph 1 made, this answer cannot be right because paragraph 2 is devoted to rebuttal, not exploration of ramifications. (An exploration like that is not a critical argument against a thing).
5. Which two sides? Paragraph 2 only presents the views of skeptics. And paragraph 3 doesn’t attempt to resolve it. Instead it argues against the views in paragraph 2.