Critical Reasoning

Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated that his theory about the determinants of rat behaviour generates consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze. On the basis of this evidence Dr. Ladlow has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct.

Anson: Then Dr. Ladlow is not responsible psychologist. Dr. Ladlow"Ÿs evidence does not conclusively prove that his theory is correct. Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Anson"Ÿs argument?

(A) Dr. Ladlow"Ÿs evidence that his theory generates consistently accurate predictions about how rates will perform in a maze is inaccurate

(B) Psychologists who can derive consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze from their theories cannot responsibly conclude that those theories cannot be disproved

(C) No matter how responsible psychologists are, they can never develop correct theoretical explanations.

(D) Responsible psychologists do not make predictions about how rats will perform in a maze

(E) Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists.

OA after some discussion

B is the right answer.

jaxis wrote:B is the right answer.

Can you please explain the reason for choosing B, which is the right answer though . My confusion is - the conclusion talks about responsible psychologist - 'Then Dr. Ladlow is not responsible psychologist.'

I was confused between B and E . Since E talks more about who should be called a responsible scientist , I chose E .
My question is since E is more of a generalised version , should we eliminate it?

Deepthi,

E has tricky wording.

Question stem says " Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect."

People who are X accept Y

Lets look at E : "Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists. "

People who accept Y are X. But some people who are not X can also accept Y in that case this agrgument may not be true.

jaxis wrote:Deepthi,

E has tricky wording.

Question stem says " Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect."

People who are X accept Y

Lets look at E : "Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists. "

People who accept Y are X. But some people who are not X can also accept Y in that case this agrgument may not be true.

Great , I got the trick here . thank you

Deepthi Subbu wrote:Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated that his theory about the determinants of rat behaviour generates consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze. On the basis of this evidence Dr. Ladlow has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct.

Anson: Then Dr. Ladlow is not responsible psychologist. Dr. Ladlow"Ÿs evidence does not conclusively prove that his theory is correct. Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Anson"Ÿs argument?

(A) Dr. Ladlow"Ÿs evidence that his theory generates consistently accurate predictions about how rates will perform in a maze is inaccurate

(B) Psychologists who can derive consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze from their theories cannot responsibly conclude that those theories cannot be disproved

(C) No matter how responsible psychologists are, they can never develop correct theoretical explanations.

(D) Responsible psychologists do not make predictions about how rats will perform in a maze

(E) Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists.

OA after some discussion

i checked several websites for the answer. some said its E, some said its B
what source is it from and whats the OA you get?

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

Deepthi Subbu wrote:Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated that his theory about the determinants of rat behaviour generates consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze. On the basis of this evidence Dr. Ladlow has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct.

Anson: Then Dr. Ladlow is not responsible psychologist. Dr. Ladlow"Ÿs evidence does not conclusively prove that his theory is correct. Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Anson"Ÿs argument?

(A) Dr. Ladlow"Ÿs evidence that his theory generates consistently accurate predictions about how rates will perform in a maze is inaccurate

(B) Psychologists who can derive consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze from their theories cannot responsibly conclude that those theories cannot be disproved

(C) No matter how responsible psychologists are, they can never develop correct theoretical explanations.

(D) Responsible psychologists do not make predictions about how rats will perform in a maze

(E) Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists.

OA after some discussion

i checked several websites for the answer. some said its E, some said its B
what source is it from and whats the OA you get?

Source is aristotleprep and the OA thats given is B

This is how i Eliminated between E and B.

E is strongly worded "new evidence will show"
I would have chosen E if the author had put in a milder word ,say "could"