Most people should be able to narrow down to B and E.

B: This is close, but on examination is incorrect. Anson says that responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect. However, this answer choice says 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. Therefore, it is possible that the psychologists can conclude that their theories cannot be disproved without new evidence being considered, but may be disproved in the face of new evidence. Insufficient.
E: This is the correct answer as it paraphrases Anson's response.

E it is.
_________________

Free profile evaluation by top b-school alumni: email us at info@gyanone.com
B-school application service http://www.gyanone.com/appone.html
[b]Visit our blog: www.gyanone.com/blog

Hmmm.....ok, if I look at E in the light that it reverses what the last line says then it appears to be incorrect.

i.e. All responsible scientists => new evidence can disprove their theories
is not the same as
Psychologists who believe new evidence can disprove their theories => responsible scientists

In this light, B seems to be better. However, the earlier issue I outlined with B still holds. Tough question, IMO.
_________________

Free profile evaluation by top b-school alumni: email us at info@gyanone.com
B-school application service http://www.gyanone.com/appone.html
[b]Visit our blog: www.gyanone.com/blog

Don't u think B talk about in general.
Psychologist who did certain experiment ===> cannot responsibly conclude about disapproval of those theory.

We can't draw general conclusion based on one experiment.

More discussion needed...
For me answer is E
_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated that his theory about the determinants of rat behaviour 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?

(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

(B) is essentially paraphrasing the paragraph, which says we know that all responsible scientists admit that their theories may be incorrect. A scientist who thinks otherwise, such as Dr. Ladlow, is not being responsible. Therefore, if you are studying rat behavior (a la Ladlow) you cannot responsibly conclude that your theory is irrefutable.

(E) Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists.

(E) is definitely very tempting. But is it something that we could reasonably infer? Let's break down the structure of the argument: All responsible psychologists are ALWAYS accept that their theories may be incorrect. All X --->Y. (E), however, is saying All Y ---> X. This is not the same thing. Just because a psychologist accepts that their theories may be incorrect does not make that person responsible. Surely, there are other criteria. For instance, a responsible psychologist must also be ethical and organized. On the other hand, if we know a psychologist to be responsible (X), then he/she will definitely accept that their respective theory may be incorrect (Y).
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep