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

its between C and E i would say. and I pick C...

"D"

I'll pick C.

Here the claim is, a certain action might not ensure the result, there could be other reasons.

B. knowledge about other actions that have been successful in similar past situations: cannot tell about the action being taken now.

E. knowledge of the facts about the context of that prediction: can be an advantage but will still not ensure the result.

C: knowledge of the result using that strategy through several trials: If the result is positive by all trials of that action, it'll be an indication that the action is the cause of that result.

B .....

I wonder what kind of people will do exercises like this, philosophers perhaps? Or lawyers? In any case I will not go anywhere close to these people.

Anyways here's my thought.

When people predict that non B unless A (ie. if B then A), and when A leads to B (A->B), they believe their predition (B->A) is correct. In fact they are wrong because although A would lead to B, C could also lead to B. In other words we can't say that without A there won't be B.

An example of this: Say I make a prediction that person A will not die (result) unless he kills himself (action). And when person A kills himself and dies, I say that my prediction is correct. However it is actually wrong, for it is very likely that even if person A doesn't kill himself, he can still die from other things. He may go out of the door and fall and hurt himself so bad that he just dies, who knows.

So what would best supports the claims that my prediction cannot be proved right by the fact that he kills himself and dies?

(A) Judging the success of an action requires specifying the goal of the action.
It's not about the success of the action, it's about whether there are other actions that would be equally successful.

(B) Judging which action to take after a prediction is made requires knowing about other actions that have been successful in similar past situations.
This may be right, but we are not trying to judge which action to take really.

(C) Learning whether a certain predictive strategy is good requires knowing the result using that strategy through several trials.
Again, it is not about how A will be successful and we don't need to prove throught multiple trials that if you kill yourself you will die every time.

(D) Distinguishing a correct prediction and effective action from an incorrect prediction and ineffective action is often impossible.
Ummm totally out of scope?

(E) Making a successful prediction requires knowing the facts about the context of that prediction
This may certainly be correct, but what relavence does it bear with regard to our discussion? Though, my prediction can only be correct if we limit the context of my prediction about person A to that he is a healthy and able young man or something like that. Otherwise we really can't say my prediction is correct. This kind of supports the claim, don't you think?

The two possible answers are B and E for me. And I would have picked E.

Hmmm obviously I didn't get this at all. Can somebody who have picked D explain a bit?

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.

Most people's thought is once the result is what they initially anticipated, they believed their prediction is correct.

On reflection, however, it often becomes clear that the result admits of more than one interpretation.

It implys the result in fact has more than one explanation. That is to say, people's prediction may correct or may not correct.

It follows that distinguishing whether a prediction is really correct is difficult.

So, I go with D.

Hope it helps.