PrepTest 150
Passage
Passage walkthrough
Topic: Science
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Background on dowsing
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Definition of "dowsing":
- The practice of detecting underground resources by walking with an inert object over a terrain (first sentence)
- Example of dowsing practice:
- Dowsers find water by walking with a forked tree branch, and when it is pulled into a vertical position, the water is below (second sentence)
- The distance and flow rate are also determined via the tree branch (third through last sentences)
- Cause-and-effect relationship, according to dowsers:
- Underground water causes the inert object to be "pulled" into a vertical position, with the strength of the pull correlating with the water's flow rate (second and last sentences);(sentence four)
- Definition of "dowsing":
Paragraph 2
- Paragraph note
- Dowsing skeptics' view
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of arguments against dowsing:
- The crudeness of the method (first sentence)
- The dowser is probably subconsciously manipulating the results (second sentence)
- Numerous studies demonstrate that, though some dowsers demonstrate considerable success, most dowsers are not consistently effective (third sentence three)
- Dowsers usually only discover water where water was likely to be found anyway (last sentence)
- Cause-and-effect relationship, according to skeptics (in contrast to the cause-and-effect relationship in the first paragraph):
- Skeptics claim the dowser's subconscious thoughts about the likelihood of finding water cause the inert object to be "pulled" upright (second sentence)
- List of arguments against dowsing:
Paragraph 3
- Paragraph note
- Dowsing proponents' view
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of arguments for dowsing:
- Dowsing is not one skill but multiple techniques that should be evaluated separately (first sentence one)
- Dowsers are self-certified, and studies of randomly-selected dowsers underrepresent great dowsers (second sentence)
- Successful dowsers actually notice Earth's electromagnetic fields (third sentence)
- A good dowser is more effective than scientists using advanced technology (last sentence)
- List of arguments for dowsing:
Paragraph 4
- Paragraph note
- Author: A recent study shows that dowsers may actually be sensitive to electromagnetic fields and more effective than scientists
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Author's view:
- A recent study "corroborated" the dowsing proponents' claims that they may be sensitive to electromagnetic fields and may be more successful than scientists using modern methods (first sentence)
- Comparison, according to the study:
- In the study, dowsers made consistently more accurate predictions about the location of drill sites for groundwater than geologists and hydrologists (last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "corroborated" (first sentence); "extensive study" (first sentence); "consistently made significantly more accurate predictions" (last sentence); "suggesting" (last sentence)
- Author's view:
Main Point: Although many are skeptical of dowsing's efficacy, a recent study has corroborated some dowsing proponents' claims that skilled dowsers are sensitive to changes in Earth's electromagnetic field and are more effective at locating underground water supplies than geologists or hydrologists.
Key Lines?Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Definition of practice
P2, S1 - Beginning of argument against the practice
P3, S1 - Beginning of argument for the practice
P4, S1 - Author's endorsement of the practice
Meta-Structure?Resolving a Debate: This author uses a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure in this passage. In such a passage, the author describes two sides of a debate and then endorses one side or attempts to resolve the dispute. In this case, the author presents a debate over dowsing's efficacy and eventually supports the pro-dowsing position. The passage is organized straightforwardly: the author defines dowsing in the first paragraph, lists arguments against dowsing in the second, outlines the pro-dowsing position in the third, and then gives their final conclusion based on recent evidence in the last paragraph.
The main point in Resolving a Debate Meta-Structures is the author's opinion on the debate or the author's mediation/reconciliation of the debate. In this case, the author's opinion is squarely pro-dowsing. So, we summarized the main point as follows, "Although many are skeptical of dowsing's efficacy, a recent study has corroborated some dowsing proponents' claims that skilled dowsers are sensitive to changes in Earth's electromagnetic field and are more effective at locating underground water supplies than geologists or hydrologists."
List: The predominant minor Meta-Structure in this passage is a list. The author lists arguments for and against dowsing in the second and third paragraphs. We summarized each item on the list in the Passage Summary. We recommend highlighting or underlining each item to help us locate any item we might need to answer a question. But if you'd like to save yourself some fact-finding missions on the inevitable Minor Point questions, you can try to memorize a few key details. Here's what we recommend memorizing about arguments for and against dowsing:
- Skeptics say dowsing is ineffective, unsupported by studies, and only used when groundwater is likely to be found anyway.
- Skeptics concede that some dowsers are consistently successful.
- Proponents say good dowsers may be sensitive to electromagnetic fields and more effective than scientists with modern technology.
- Proponents concede that there are many more bad dowsers than good dowsers represented in a typical study.
Of course, if you have trouble memorizing stuff, you don't have to. You can always check the passage to anticipate what the correct answer will say. We'll discuss how you can do this most efficiently in the question explanations.
Last Thoughts?With the lists factoring into each paragraph, this is an exceptionally detail-oriented passage. So, we should expect a higher proportion of Minor Point questions. Thankfully, we'll be armed with location devices even more powerful than a dowsing stick: our notes, what we highlighted/underlined, and (if necessary) the CTRL/Command + F search function.
Question prompt
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Strategy Overview
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
ANarrow, tilted fracture zones Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
(A) Do you recall reading that narrow, tilted fracture zones in underlying bedrock are more likely to be found in arid regions?
Probably not. If you don't recall this detail, move along to the next answer choice. Don't succumb to the temptation to review the passage to determine whether this is correct.
If we did review the passage, we wouldn't find any support. The study in the last paragraph says that the arid countries studied featured tilted fracture zones and bedrock (P4, S2). However, the passage does not compare the likelihood that these features will appear in arid regions versus any other region.
-
BThere are no reliable Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
(B) Do you recall reading that there are no reliable studies that indicate that dowsers can consistently locate resources other than groundwater?
Maybe. After all, this is a commonly chosen wrong answer choice. However, experienced test-takers will note that this answer choice uses extreme language ("no reliable studies") that is unlikely to appear in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. Such test-takers would likely feel comfortable tabling or eliminating this answer choice.
If we did check the passage to determine whether this is correct, we'd see that it isn't supported. The passage never discusses whether studies have tested dowsers' ability to locate resources other than groundwater. It's possible that no such studies exist and that (B) is true. However, it's equally possible that these studies exist (but not described in this passage) and that (B) is untrue. After all, even dowsing skeptics acknowledge that some dowsers demonstrate considerable and consistent success (P2, S3). These skeptics don't say that these dowsers are only successful at finding groundwater, so perhaps some studies show that dowsers can locate other resources too.
-
CA dowser attempting to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
(C) Do you remember reading that a dowser would use a different tool when attempting to locate a dry fracture zone?
Probably not. If you can't remember reading this detail, check the next answer choice rather than review the passage.
If we elected to review the passage, we wouldn't find any support for (C). The passage tells us that dowsers use inert tools like forked tree branches and metal rods (P1, S1). The passage also tells us that dowsers can locate groundwater and dry fracture zones (P4, S4). However, the passage does not tell us that any tool is more likely to be used in any specific situation.
-
DGeologists and hydrologists participating Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
(D) Do you remember reading that geologists and hydrologists in the groundwater-locating study could not find dry fracture zones?
Many test-takers think they remember this detail. If you recall reading about this topic, check the passage to verify its support. That said, expert test-takers will realize that this answer choice uses bold, hard-to-support language ("could not") unlikely to appear in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. Consequently, these test-takers would probably table or eliminate this answer choice.
In the final paragraph, the author says that dowsers in the groundwater-locating study were able to locate dry fracture zones "on request" (P4, S4). We also know that dowsers made significantly more accurate predictions on the location of groundwater than geologists and hydrologists (P4, S4). With these two facts, it's tempting to conclude that the scientists could not locate dry fracture zones "on request." However, we never learned whether geologists and hydrologists were asked to locate dry fracture zones. And we never learn that they couldn't find dry fracture zones. Even if they were less successful at locating groundwater, they could have been equally successful in locating dry fracture zones. Even if they were less successful, they still could have discovered at least one dry fracture zone. For these reasons, this answer choice is not supported.
-
EThe groundwater-locating study described Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
(E) Do you remember reading that the groundwater-locating study from the last paragraph was not a typical dowsing study?
Perhaps. If you do, it's worth reviewing the passage to see if you can find out what characteristics the typical dowsing study possesses and what characteristics might distinguish the study from the last paragraph.
Upon review, we can see that the third paragraph states that verifiably successful dowsers are not well represented in the typical dowsing study (P3, S2). By contrast, the study in the last paragraph examined teams of the most successful dowsers (P4, S1). Thus, we can infer that the study described in the fourth paragraph was not typical.
What this tests
Discussion
-
A vs E 2 replies
Started by Minerva