Self-study
This passage is based on an article written in 1995.
P1
███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ████ █ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████ █████████ █████████ ███████████ ██████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ █ ████████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ████████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ █████
Intro topic ·
Dowsing
Detecting resources or object underground by using simple handheld tools. Example: trying to find water underground by using a forked tree branch. The branch purportedly changes direction based on presence of water.
P2
█████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ██████████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████ █████ ███████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████████ █████████ ███
Skeptics' perspective ·
Dowsing is ineffective
Dowsers are making subconscious determinations about water location based on surface conditions. Branch movement reflects dowser's thoughts; nothing about the branch actually helps detect water.
Concession and skeptics' response ·
Studies show some dowsers have considerable success at detection, but most dowsers are inconsistent
Also, most dowsing occurs where we expect water to be everywhere. So studies showing some success for dowsers don't reveal as much as you'd think.
P3
██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████████████ ███ ███████████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███
Proponents' perspective ·
Criticism of dowsing goes too far
(1) There's different dowsing techniques. Evaluate them separately. (2) Dowsing studies might not be including the best dowsers in their studies.
Proponents' claims about good dowsers ·
They might be more sensitive to changes in electromagnetic fields, and they're more successful than scientists at detecting water
P4
███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████████ ██████ █ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ █████████████ ████ ████████ ███████████ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ █ ███ ████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████
Support for proponents' claims / Author's perspective ·
Recent study corroborates claims about best dowsers
Study put best dowsers against scientists in locations without much water, and without surface conditions that reveal presence of water. Best dowsers located water much more accurately than the scientists.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
15.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████
a
to add detail ██ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
P2 doesn’t add detail to the description of dowsing in P1. P2 introduces a viewpoint about dowsing.
b
to offer two ████████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████ █ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
P2 doesn’t offer two perspectives about dowsing; it offers only the skeptics’ perspective.
c
to present arguments ███████ █████ ███ █████ █████████ ████████ ████████████████
This best captures the purpose of P2. P2 presents the skeptics’ views, which are countered by the proponents’ views in P3.
d
to explore in ██████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
P2 doesn’t explore any ramifications or consequences of something said in P1. P2 brings in a perspective about the subject that is introduced in P1 (dowsing).
e
to clarify the ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ████████ ██ ███████
P2 doesn’t clarify issues on both sides of a dispute. It presents one side of the dispute.