LSAT 150 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q17

RC Question 17 Explanation

DISCUSSION: This question references the dowsing skeptics, who are mentioned in paragraph 2. So, you should reread that paragraph and see what arguments the skeptics made.

1. Dowsers use simple tools, and are actually finding water based on above ground clues.
2. Dowsers generally have inconsistent success.
3. Dowsers usually dowse in places with tons of water, increasing their hit rate.

You don’t need to write all that down, I’m just summing up paragraph 2. But, you absolutely should skim the paragraph and note that there are three points, and be prepared to reread one more deeply if it seems relevant to an answer. The answer is an analogy based on one of these three points, so you need to be precise. This is a sort of parallel reasoning question, except there are three arguments to possibly parallel, instead of one.

Remember, you’re trying to prove answers wrong, not help them be right. 4/5 answers are misleading traps. You should be looking to eliminate an answer, rather than twist it into something it doesn’t say in order to pick it.

___________

1. Careful. The weather analysts are not the skeptics in this argument! They’d be dowsing proponents. Remember, the skeptics were the ones making the argument in paragraph 2. So, in this answer, the person making the argument is analogous to the skeptics. So, the person making the argument is saying “But some computer models have been known….”
    
   This would be like saying “Dowsing can actually be done, but by computer model”, or something. Which is nothing like what the passage said. You can’t merely look at who seems skeptical in an answer and say “aha, they must be the skeptics!”. It has to be the person making the argument in order to match the structure of the passage.
2. The skeptics….didn’t say this. I defy you to read paragraph 2 and produce anything that sounds like the skeptics saying “But, very few dowsers can show any evidence at all”
    
   Dowsers evidence is that they found water! ….sometimes. It turns out this has reporting bias and other biases when you investigate it. But, it’s at least a tangible claim based on physical evidence, unlike those who claim to have seen ghosts.
3. The skeptics were arguing that dowsers were generally bad. This answer says that certain musicians are good. It’s making a claim in a different direction. Further, the skeptics didn’t mention practice! This wouldn’t even make sense, since skeptics think dowsing isn’t real, and therefore isn’t something you can get good at.
    
   (The only reference to this answer was in lines 39-41, where proponents argue that dowsers may have an innate sense of the earth’s electromagnetic field. Practice isn’t mentioned, and this wasn’t the skeptics.)
4. CORRECT. This is the third argument above. In the passage it starts with “Finally,”. Dowsers boost their success rate by only searching in areas with plentiful water, and “fish sensers” boost their success rate by only looking in areas with plentiful fish.
5. This describes false memories, or false beliefs generally. The analogue to this didn’t happen.
    
   Analogue: Dowsers say they believe they can find water. But, this doesn’t prove they actually can find water.