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.

Question Stem:
Zelda - based on some evidence Dr. has demonstrated, Dr. Ladlow has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct.
Anson - is giving importance to "responsible" Psychologists by saying "Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect."

So one can infer either E or B since both were very close.
E - makes gives more clear idea abt responsible psychologists

Yeah B and E are strong contenders. I will go with E because B narrowed down premises to "Rat psychologist" whereas Anson's argument reflect general view of "responsible psychologist". Another thing is B states "responsibly conclude" - here stem says about "responsible psychologist" not how they "conclude"!!

IMO E
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

If E is indeed the correct answer, it just proves that I haven learned my lesson ever.

I initially chose E but look at the last sentence "Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect."

Now E

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

Isn't E merely a restatement of what is said? While we definitely want to pick the most obvious and least contentious, this choice is clearly a mere restatement? just moved few words around.

Isnt the word never making C a non contender. Too strong IMO

B is actually combing "Then Dr. Ladlow is not responsible psychologist" & "Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect"

OA & OE please?

Is B the OA?

both B & E are very close.......but i would definitely go with E.........

It certainly LOOKS like an LSAT question. Even if it isn't, LSAT techniques are very useful in answering it.

The most useful thing to do is to recognize that Anson's third sentence is actually an if-then statement. It means: "If X is a responsible psychologist, then X accepts the possibility that new evidence will show that his/her theory is incorrect."

Since Zelda tells us and Anson that Dr. Ladlow considers his theory to be irrefutable -- in other words, he does not think it is possible for new evidence to show that it is incorrect -- Anson's conclusion (that Dr. Ladlow is not a responsible psychologist) is logically sound. (As always, "logically sound" means that if the evidence is true, the conclusion MUST be true as well.) Now we are looking for the answer choice which ALSO is a logically sound conclusion, if Anson's statements are true.

(C) does not logically follow from this evidence. Anson's statement says that responsible psychologists must accept the POSSIBILITY of their theories being found to be wrong, but this clearly does NOT mean that the theories ARE or MUST BE wrong.

(E) does not follow from the evidence. As was already stated, it "reverses" the stimulus. As shown above, Anson's third statement means: "If X is a responsible psychologist, then X accepts the possibility that new evidence will show that his/her theory is incorrect." Choice (E) says: "If X accepts the possibility that new evidence will show that his/her theory is incorrect, then X is a responsible psychologist." The stimulus says "If A, then B", and choice (E) says "If B, then A". You can NEVER deduce "If B, then A" from "If A, then B".

(B) is correct. It is another concealed "if-then" statement. It means: "If a psychologist making a specific kind of prediction reasons responsibly, he/she cannot conclude that his/her theory is irrefutable." This can be accurately restated as: "If a psychologist making a certain kind of prediction reasons responsibly, he or she must accept the possibility that his/her theory could be refuted." Anson's third statement says exactly this about ALL psychologists. Since the psychologists who make predictions about rats in mazes are a subset of all psychologists, (B) is necessarily true if Anson's third statement is true.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

is not there a specific forum for LSAT questions?

E does the classic act of reversal the premise.

B fits.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!