LSAT 150 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q18

RC Question 18 Explanation

DISCUSSION: This question is asking about paragraph 4. You should skim it for structural words. I found:

• “The last two claims were corroborated during a….study….” ➞ These claims supported dowsing and said dowsers may sense electromagnetic fields. So the author is saying the study supports those statements.
• “Suggesting….dowsers can detect variations in subsurface conditions” ➞ This shows the author thinks the study supported dowsing.

I bolded “the last two claims” because this is an example of an extremely common LSAT tactic: referencing something earlier. To fully understand the bolded sentence, you need to have read both paragraphs 3 and 4. Most specifically, you need to know what the two claims are. They are:

• Some dowsers can sense changes in earth’s electromagnetic field, and
• These dowsers have higher success rates than scientists who use scientific tools.

When the LSAT says something like “That claim” or “The argument above”, you always, always, always, ALWAYS need to know what it refers to. Don’t just blankly read it. Knowing what lines are reference is the key to RC.

___________

1. Rubbish. The study said the dowsers were more accurate. That doesn’t mean the geologists were inaccurate. It could be a 80% vs. 70% success rate. In such a case, both are useful.
2. CORRECT. See the discussion above. The author says “the last two claims” were supported by the study. One of those claims was that dowsers can detect small changes in Earth’s electromagnetic field.
3. “Prove conclusively” is damned strong language. This was one study, and it only examined the “most successful” dowsers. To identify a dependable technique, you’d want to compare typical dowsers compared to typical geologists and hydrologists.
    
   It’s possible that dowsing as a whole is rubbish even if a few dowsers are successful. And a single study can generally not prove a thing conclusively.
4. Paragraph 4 doesn’t say which tools dowsers used! This answer has zero support.
    
   You might have been thinking of the last line of paragraph 3, which said that geologists and hydrologists use electromagnetic sensors, etc. This line didn’t say dowsers used those tools. It said dowsers were better than geologists and hydrologists who used those tools.
5. Actually, this study directly argues against the skeptics final argument, in lines 27-31. Skeptics had claimed dowsers only succeed because they work in areas with plentiful water. But, in this study, dowsers worked in “various arid countries”. Arid means a place without much water.