Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT150 S4 P3 Q17 Explanation

Dowsing

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAnalogyScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

This passage is based on an article written

Dowsing is the practice of detecting resources or objects beneath the ground by passing handheld, inert tools such as forked sticks, pendulums, or metal rods over a terrain. For example, dowsers typically determine prospective water-well drilling locations by walking with a horizontally held forked tree branch until it becomes vertical, claiming the the strength of the pull felt by the dowser correlates with the potential well’s flow rate.

Those skeptical of dowsing’s efficacy point to the crudeness of its methods as a self-evident reason to question it. They assert that dowsers’ use of inert tools indicates that the dowsers themselves actually make subconscious determinations concerning the likely location of groundwater using clues derived from surface conditions; the tools’ movements merely expected to be ubiquitous, making it statistically unlikely that a dowsed well will be completely dry.

Proponents of dowsing point out that it involves a number of distinct techniques and contend that each of these techniques should be evaluated separately. They also note that numerous dowsing studies have been influenced by a lack of care in selecting the study population; dowsers are largely self-proclaimed and self-certified, and verifiably and hydrologists who use scientific tools such as electromagnetic sensors or seismic readings to locate groundwater.

The last two claims were corroborated during a recent and extensive study that utilized teams of the most successful dowsers, geologists, and hydrologists to locate reliable water supplies in various arid countries. Efforts were concentrated on finding groundwater in narrow, tilted fracture zones in bedrock underlying surface sediments. The teams were unfamiliar request even located a dry fracture zone, suggesting that dowsers can detect variations in subsurface conditions.

What this question is testing

Analogy

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
17.

The reasoning in which one of the following is most analogous to an argument explicitly attributed to dowsing's

Answer choices

  1. No Match: computer is better4% picked this

    Some weather analysts claim that no one can forecast the weather a week ahead with better than 40 percent accuracy, but some computer models

    It's hard to even call this answer choice reasoning. There isn't a conclusion/premise here, just two contrasting thoughts. The idea of computers doing better than what some people think any person can do doesn't match up with any of the skeptics' arguments against dowsing.

  2. No Match: no evidence4% picked this

    Some people claim to have seen ghosts, but very few of these people can adduce even the smallest piece of credible

    It looks like all the answers are set up in this non-reasoning format. We're apparently supposed to assume in each case that the 2nd claim, the "but" claim, is supporting an implied conclusion that "We are skeptical of the 1st claim". This "argument" is saying, "We should be skeptical that ghosts exist, because very few people who say they do exist can show even the smallest piece of credible evidence". Did the skeptics say, "We should be skeptical that dowsing is effective, because very few dowsers can show even the smallest piece of credible evidence"? No. It was "crude tools / inconsistent success rate / done in areas that unfairly favor success". We need one of those.

  3. No Match: years of practice4% picked this

    Some musicians perform so well that their performances have been said to express a pure, innate talent, but such performances are in fact due

    This "argument" is saying, "We should be skeptical that certain awesome musicians are that way because of a pure, innate talent, because in reality they've just practiced a lot." Did the skeptics say, "We should be skeptical that dowsing is effective, because in reality dowsers have just practiced a lot"? No. It was "crude tools / inconsistent success rate / done in areas that unfairly favor success". We need one of those.

  4. Correct87% picked this

    Some people claim to be able to sense where the area's good fishing spots are, but the lakes in the area are so loaded

    Why this is right

    This "argument" is saying, "We should be skeptical when people claim they have the ability to sense good fishing spots, because this lake is so loaded with fish that any spot you pick is going to have fish." Did the skeptics say, "We should be skeptical that dowsing is effective, because the area where people dowse is so loaded with groundwater that any spot you pick is going to have groundwater"? Yes! That's the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. "Areas where groundwater is expected to be ubiquitous" = lakes are so loaded with fish "it's statistically unlikely that a dowsed well will be completely dry" = it would be difficult not to pick a good spot

    Skill tested: Analogy · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  5. No Evidence at All1% picked this

    Some people have memories of participating in historical events in which they did not actually participate, but this does not prove

    This drifts even farther from any skeptical "argument". No one here is claiming anything that a skeptic could rebut. The author is just telling us that when someone has a memory of participating in a historical event, that doesn't prove they have been reincarnated. She doesn't offer any reason for that skepticism, so there's nothing here to even try to match up with the rationale of dowsing skeptics..

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free