PrepTest 150, Section 4, Question 17
This passage is based on an article written(452 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(17 more words not shown)
- ASome weather analysts(31 more words not shown)
- BSome people claim(23 more words not shown)
- CSome musicians perform(27 more words not shown)
- DSome people claim(33 more words not shown)
- ESome people have(23 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
There are several skeptical arguments we could match. The tool may reflect subconscious judgments based on surface clues. Dowsers' results are generally inconsistent despite a few successful practitioners. And finding water isn't impressive if water is available almost everywhere they search.
What we’re looking for
The analogy could match any one of those. We need the same reasoning, not merely another claim about an unusual ability.
Working the answers
- A
This challenges a proposed limit on forecasting accuracy by pointing to computer models that exceed it. The skeptics don't set a numerical ceiling and then cite cases exceeding that ceiling. It doesn't match their account of how dowsing successes should be understood.
- B
This questions whether people claiming to see ghosts have credible evidence. The skeptics concede that some dowsers have demonstrated consistent success; they then question what the broader results show. They are not simply saying almost nobody can offer evidence of success.
- C
This explains an impressive performance through intense practice instead of innate talent. The skeptics don't attribute the successful dowsers' performance to years of practice. Their alternative explanation concerns subconscious use of surface clues, not a contrast between training and natural ability.
- DCorrect
If fish are everywhere, picking a good fishing spot doesn't demonstrate a special ability to sense fish. Match that to the skeptics' last argument: if groundwater is everywhere, picking a successful drilling location doesn't demonstrate a special ability to detect water. In each case, the claimed achievement is much less impressive once we consider how easy success would be anyway.
- E
This says apparent memories of events someone never experienced don't prove reincarnation. That is a rejection of an explanation for a claimed experience. It doesn't reproduce the skeptics' specific reasoning about surface clues, inconsistent results, or an abundant target making success easy.
More Analogy questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Analogy questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.