jeevan.Gk wrote: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.
Definitely a head scratcher!
However, as usual, if we approach the question carefully we can get the right answer, even if we're not 100% sure why it's correct.
The scope of this argument is whether or not the prediction was actually accurate based on the result. Looking at the choices:
a) about judging success of an action, not a prediction... eliminate.
b) about what action to take after a prediction, not judging a prediction... eliminate.
c) about judging the success of a predictive strategy... keep.
d) about distinguishing between good and bad predictions and mentions actions... keep.
e) about making successful predictions... keep.
OK, at least we have it down to 1 in 3. Now let's look at (c), (d) and (e) in a bit more detail.
e) this argument says nothing about context... eliminate.
(c) and (d) are a bit trickier.
If (c) is true, do we believe the author's conclusion that even when the prediction seems correct, there may be other explanations? No, it doesn't. The number of trials it takes is outside the scope. Let's use Kaplan's denial test:
Denial of (c):
It is not true that learning whether a certain predictive strategy is good requires knowing the result using that strategy through several trials.
or
Learning whether a certain predictive strategy is good
does not require knowing the result using that strategy through several trials.
The denial of (c) leaves us just as befuddled as (c) does itself. Since the denial of (c) does not clearly weaken the argument, (c) isn't a good strengthener.
Therefore, by elimination, (d) must be correct.
(D) is just a good general statement that it's hard to figure out the link between effective actions and predictions related to those actions. Let's look at the denial of (d):
It is not true that distinguishing a correct prediction and effective action from an incorrect prediction and ineffective action is often impossible.
or
Distinguishing a correct prediction and effective action from an incorrect prediction and ineffective action is
rarely impossible.
The denial of (d) makes is seem like we should be able to distinguish between good and bad predictions. If we can distinguish between good and bad predictions, then we doubt the author's conclusion that even when it seems like our prediction is true, it may be wrong.
Now, I'm not suggesting that this is a clear and easy question (I'd be interested in the source - something that EVERY poster should include with EVERY question posted on the site), but by process of elimination the answer has to be (D).
