#20 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[CCLSAT1995]

Hello,

I am having trouble understanding why Answer E is correct. I chose D, because the final paragraph makes it sound like locating a dry fracture zone upon request was something the geologists and hydrologists were not able to do, as the paragraph states that the dowser consistently made more accurate predictions, even locating a dry fracture zone upon request.
However, I do not see any evidence that the groundwater study was not a typical dowsing study.

Thanks in advance

[nicholaspavic]

Hi CC,
Great question.

The last paragraph generally focuses on what the dowser team did and not what the professionals did. The statement that
"The dowsers consistently made significantly more accurate predictions regarding drill sites, and on request even
located a dry fracture zone, suggesting that dowsers (60) can detect variations in subsurface conditions" makes no representation about what the professional teams were able to accomplish.

Remember that when asked about what a passage was "inferring," the LSAC is actually asking us what must be true about the passage. So we must use the Fact Test as we do in all Must Be True questions. Here, the paragraph does not support the inference that the professional teams "could not locate a dry fracture zone upon request." In fact, it is silent about their results. Instead, it only focuses on the dowser team and their (apparently) impressive accomplishment. Thanks and I hope this helped!

[CCLSAT1995]

Hello,

Thanks for the response!

I understand that that aspect of the question now.

However, is there any indication in the passage that the groundwater study was not a typical dowsing study?

Thanks again.

[cinder123]

Hello,

I am also wondering where it is suggested that the groundwater locating study is not the same as a typical dowsing study?

Thank you

[Francis O'Rourke]

In the second paragraph, the passage states that dowsing skeptics note that dowsing is "largely confined" to areas where "groundwater is ubiquitous." From this, we can infer that dowsing is typically performed in somewhat wet areas.

The study however, was performed in arid countries (Line 50) and the dowsers were successful "even [in] a dry fracture zone." This is proof that the study was a bit different from how dowsing usually tested; i.e. in wetter areas.

[harvoolio]

I think there is another reason why (E) is correct. In the second to last paragraph it says that "... verifiable successful dowsers are not well represented in the typical study" and the study in the final paragraph comprised "teams of the most successful dowsers." So, therefore it was not the typical study.

Updated: Changed from (D) to (E) to reflect Alex's subsequent comment. Thanks.

[Alex Bodaken]

harvoolio,

This is exactly right, except that I think you mean to say that this is another reason why (E) (not D) is right.

Alex

[CristinaCP]

Hi Powerscore!

I originally eliminated E because I couldn’t find any support for it not being typical within the paragraph about the study, where I’d expect to find that information. Instead, the support for E is based on small details about dowsing from other paragraphs, which I just didn’t remember/couldn’t find while I was doing the questions.

So my question is, how should I approach a broad inference question like this next time? What if I don’t remember or can’t find one of the details which would lead to an inference, and mistakenly conclude that an AC has no support? Do I just need to read more carefully?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi CristinaCP!

You ask,

So my question is, how should I approach a broad inference question like this next time? What if I don’t remember or can’t find one of the details which would lead to an inference, and mistakenly conclude that an AC has no support? Do I just need to read more carefully?

Without knowing more about how you are approaching reading comprehension, I'd say it's not necessarily a matter of reading more carefully. That perhaps might partly be the case, but if you read too carefully, that can eat up a lot of time and thus could make a difference for the worse in terms of overall score (e.g., reading too carefully might mean a student only gets to three passages rather than all four).

Reading with care is important, but it's almost equally as important to remember to notate and mark up the passage. Having arrows, plus and minus signs, numbers for lists, etc. can be very useful for knowing at a quick glance what is happening in each paragraph. Then when you move on to questions, hopefully those notations in the margins will direct you where to look.

For instance, you might have circled the mention of a "typical study" in the third paragraph, and drawn an arrow to the fourth paragraph with a minus sign next to it to indicate difference--that is, there is some key difference between the typical study and the study in the final paragraph. One difference that stands out is that successful dowsers aren't represented well in the typical study but they do appear to be represented in the study in the final paragraph.