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.

17. 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

My Choice is E

Option A and E are close.

But as per Zelda, in the first paragraph, A is stated as something which has been demonstrated convincingly.

On the contrary, E suits the case better and can be safely inferred. I go with Option E.

Whats the OA?

another vote for E

NO second thought!!!

IMO E ...

This one tricky....
I guess its B

in my opinion answer is B

AS B CLEARLY STATES THE POINT OF THE ANSON.

B STATES THAT 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.

AND ANSON STATES THAT:
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.


AS ZELDA CONCLUSION was:
On the basis of this evidence, Dr. Ladlow has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct.
SO, B IS CORRECT as it clearly suggests that scientists who says that their theory are incorrect are not responsible scientists.

either e or b.

i think b b/c e doesnt sound right when it says "will" show. will means definite not possibility

IMO - E

WHATS THE OA ?

to answering inference questions, find the informatin which is the information which is paraphrased or information which is infer from 2 (usually) or 3 piecess of information in the evidence

here we find the information which is paraphrased. E is correct

IMO its B.

If researchers are RESPONSIBLE they will accept NEW EVIDENCES...
But in E - If researchers accepts new evidences, they are responsible. This is false.

Thanks,
V

I wonder why some participants in this site do not post Official Answers !!!!!

It would have better if they have not posted the questions in the first place. After lots of Brain work, one need to know if he is right or wrong.

IMO B
Where is OA ????