A
"Since we need many beliefs in order to survive" -> There is no justification for this assumption.

A states -> The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it presumes, without providing any justification, that the surest way of increasing the overall correctness of the total set of one's beliefs must not hinder one's ability to survive

B: Mistaken assumption that one cannot ADD to one's set, but only subtract from one's set.

diebeatsthegmat wrote:Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the overall correctness of the total set of one's beliefs is: never change that set, except by rejecting a belief when given adequate evidence against it. However, if this were the only rule one followed, then whenever one were presented with any kind of evidence, one would have to either reject some of one's beliefs or else leave one's beliefs unchanged. But then, over time, one could only have fewer and fewer beliefs. Since we need many beliefs in order to survive, the statisticians' claim must be mistaken.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presumes, without providing any justification, that the surest way of increasing the overall correctness of the total set of one's beliefs must not hinder one's ability to survive
(B) neglects the possibility that even while following the statisticians' rule, one might also accept new beliefs when presented with some kinds of evidence
(C) overlooks the possibility that some large sets of beliefs are more correct overall than are some small sets of beliefs
(D) takes for granted that one should accept some beliefs related to survival even when given adequate evidence against them
(E) takes for granted that the beliefs we need in order to have many beliefs must all be correct beliefs

I would go for B
What is OA

one more for B

Have to go with A here.

The question stem states that the set of beliefs cannot be changed, except by eliminating beliefs - which to my thinking DOEs say that you cannot add new beliefs (though it is unclear how the beliefs got there to begin with, if that is the case). This eliminates B as going against the argument's premises, in my book.

when reading the argument, I felt that the main problem with it is that the two stated goals - having a set of correct beliefs and surviving - are not mutual exclusive. The fact that we need many beliefs to survive does not mean that the statisticians are mistaken: Their method of elimination may still be the surest way to increase the overall correctness of the total set of one'e beliefs.

In a way, the argument is the same as the following argument's logic:
John says "the sky is blue".
Jane says "you're wrong. The earth is brown".

Even though Jane claims John is wrong, her claim doesn't really counter John's claim -both claims may be true, and can coincide with each other. Taken to the extreme, I can be dead as a doornail, and STILL have a correct (albeit small) set of beliefs.

thus, a is the correct description of the problem: the argument mistakenly links the two goals together, as if only one of them may be true and not the other. Or, as answer choice A says it, presumes that goal A must not hinder goal B, but doesn't stop to justify this claim.

A: Yes! I see it now. Thank you.

I will go with B

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:Have to go with A here.

The question stem states that the set of beliefs cannot be changed, except by eliminating beliefs - which to my thinking DOEs say that you cannot add new beliefs (though it is unclear how the beliefs got there to begin with, if that is the case). This eliminates B as going against the argument's premises, in my book.

when reading the argument, I felt that the main problem with it is that the two stated goals - having a set of correct beliefs and surviving - are not mutual exclusive. The fact that we need many beliefs to survive does not mean that the statisticians are mistaken: Their method of elimination may still be the surest way to increase the overall correctness of the total set of one'e beliefs.

In a way, the argument is the same as the following argument's logic:
John says "the sky is blue".
Jane says "you're wrong. The earth is brown".

Even though Jane claims John is wrong, her claim doesn't really counter John's claim -both claims may be true, and can coincide with each other. Taken to the extreme, I can be dead as a doornail, and STILL have a correct (albeit small) set of beliefs.

thus, a is the correct description of the problem: the argument mistakenly links the two goals together, as if only one of them may be true and not the other. Or, as answer choice A says it, presumes that goal A must not hinder goal B, but doesn't stop to justify this claim.

But Geva
The option A says , that the stimulus assumes without justification that the surest way of increasing the overall corectness of the set of beliefs is by eliminating the beliefs is hurting the ability to survive.
But the stimulus does give a valid reason "To survive one must have many beliefs "