Critical Reasoning

Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated that his theory about the determinants of rat behavior 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’s 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’s argument?
(A) Dr. Ladlow’s 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.

IMO E. Anson is only talking about who responsible psychologists are & E very correctly infers his statement.

Its "E"....

I'd go with B

A. There is no evidence that his predictions have been proven wrong at this point. The whole issue is that "responsible" psychologists wouldn't exclude them being proven wrong in future tests.

B. Correct

C. The fact that psychologists wouldn't be able to develop reliable theories has nothing to do with them being responsible or not

D. Responsible psychologists do make predictions, they just don't exclude being proven wrong in the future.

E. It's not because a psychologist doesn't exclude being proven wrong that he is necessarily "responsible". Responsible drivers don't drink, but it's not because you don't drink that you are a responsible driver (you could have blindfolded yourself for instance )

confused between B and E....but I'll go for B

I will go with E. Whats the OA?

E

second argument does not include rats so lets clear B out of picture.

good question!!

B shud be the answer

E is really attractive but its a reverse answer,...

B talk about the doctors concerned with rats only where as Anson ' remarks are related to resposibiloty of doctors.

IMO its E

E has a classic error i would go be B here