Critical Reasoning

When people predict that certain result will not take place unless a certain action is taken, they believe that they have learned that the prediction is correct when the action is taken and the result occurs. On reflection, however, it often becomes clear that the result admits of more than one interpretation.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the claims above?

(A) Judging the success of an action requires specifying the goal of the action.
(B) Judging which action to take after a prediction is made requires knowing about other actions that have been successful in similar past situations.
(C) Learning whether a certain predictive strategy is good requires knowing the result using that strategy through several trials.
(D) Distinguishing a correct prediction and effective action from an incorrect prediction and ineffective action is often impossible.
(E) Making a successful prediction requires knowing the facts about the context of that prediction.


Could any of the experts please help in the above CR to understand.... (v.imp)

This does not seem to be a GMAT-worthy question.

I found it discussed in a few forums. No one knows the origin. It just appeared on the Internet from somewhere. Perhaps one of you knows the origin?

Anyway, I found an LSAT forum where the person who posted it ended up apologizing because it is such a weird question that would not appear on the LSAT even. And remember that the LSAT is tougher CR than the GMAT.

So, I would not spend any time on this question. Of course if someone can give me the origin and (heaven forbid) if this is an official question in would be worth breaking down. But for now I would just avoid it. It is not so much a difficult question as a poorly written one.

Don't worry if you did now know how to do this one!

Ha Ha,

Aptly taken David [If a question is tough for me at this stage when my test is day after tomorrow, I would really love to see this answer from an expert]

I was really lost with this question.

Thank you!!