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.
OA-B

Anson bases his conclusion about Dr. Ladlow on which one of the following?
(A) an attack on Dr. Ladlow’s character
(B) the application of a general principle
(C) the use of an ambiguous term
(D) the discrediting of facts
(E) the rejection of a theoretical explanation
OA B

Well one of things you aren't suppose to do is apply your own knowledge to the information because it could act as a bias.

However, in the scientific community, theories are explanations for things and they are accepted until they are proved wrong. However, theories are never really proved right. For instance, gravity is a theory that is commonly accepted and pretty much accepted as truth, but tomorrow someone could prove that something else -perhaps some sort of vacuum- is keeping up in touch with the ground.

So the first answer is B

Likewise, second answer is also B.

4seasoncentre wrote:Well one of things you aren't suppose to do is apply your own knowledge to the information because it could act as a bias.

However, in the scientific community, theories are explanations for things and they are accepted until they are proved wrong. However, theories are never really proved right. For instance, gravity is a theory that is commonly accepted and pretty much accepted as truth, but tomorrow someone could prove that something else -perhaps some sort of vacuum- is keeping up in touch with the ground.

So the first answer is B

Likewise, second answer is also B.

For first question, can you please post the reasoning for eliminating E.

Notice that Zelda presents a theory. At no point does Anson disagree with or reject the theory. All he does is argue that scientist should always accept that at some point they can be proved wrong in the future.

It is confusing because Anson argues that the theory can not be 'conclusively' approved. This should not be equated with rejecting the theory, because Anson is arguing that nothing in science is conclusively proved.

@sg1928
Here is the reason why E is wrong.
I learnt this concept from some book. Very Good concept. It was Kaplan 800 I guess.
Its called causal something.. dont remember the topic name exactly nor the contents. But heres an idea of what it was.


Consider this statement : If A is correct, then B is also correct.
However, based on the statement above it will be WRONG to make the following conclusions. We can never be sure of the facts below, unless it is stated or unless its maths:
If B is correct then A is correct
If A is wrong then B is wrong
If B is wrong then A is wrong

I repeat, All the above are invalid conclusions

Last part of the sentence says, responsible psychologists accept something... It does not mean that all psychologists who accept that thing are responsible. Hence E is incorrect.

A C D are all extremes and wrong. B is correct. It essentially states the same thing as what Anson said.

Q.1 answer E is incorrect because:

Argument: "if a psychologist is responsible, then he accepts the possibility"

Answer E: "If a psychologist accepts the possibility, then he is responsible"

Generally, given "If X then Y", we cannot infer that "If Y then X". That is exactly what E does and is therefore incorrect. Consider this example:

"If I'm in Paris, then I'm in Europe" is a given. However, can we infer the reverse? "If I'm in Europe, then I'm in Paris" cannot be inferred.

I agree with you guys. I also think that the right answer is E