It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 11:15

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1701 [3], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2012, 23:09
3
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (01:54) correct 62% (01:42) wrong based on 338 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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?

(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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Last edited by broall on 11 Jun 2017, 07:13, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question

Kudos [?]: 1701 [3], given: 62

VP
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1354

Kudos [?]: 650 [1], given: 20

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2012, 00:19
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Top MBA Admissions Consulting | Top MiM Admissions Consulting

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Kudos [?]: 650 [1], given: 20

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2012, 00:29
Thats what I thought. But was shatterred to see that it was incorrect.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

VP
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1354

Kudos [?]: 650 [0], given: 20

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2012, 03:25
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.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Top MBA Admissions Consulting | Top MiM Admissions Consulting

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Kudos [?]: 650 [0], given: 20

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1078

Kudos [?]: 660 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2012, 07:05
Marcab

I do not think there can be any challenges to E.....
Rightly said i narrowed down to B and E.
But B i do not think is an inference.

Kudos [?]: 660 [0], given: 70

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2012, 08:14
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

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

Intern
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 7

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Location: Italy
Schools: Bocconi '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 720 Q47 V42
GPA: 3.87
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2012, 08:47
Marcab wrote:
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?
(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.

I'd say B.

I think it's not E, because we cannot assume that what defines a responsible psychologist is only the fact that s/he accepts the possibility that new evidence will show that their theory is incorrect. Someone who accepts this possibility might not be a responsible psychologist for other reasons (necessary but not sufficient condition).

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 303

Kudos [?]: 1255 [7], given: 2

Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2012, 16:01
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
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

Kudos [?]: 1255 [7], given: 2

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2013, 05:34
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?

(A) Dr. Ladlow‟s evidence that his theory generates consistently accurate predictions about how rates will perform in a maze is inaccurate. We can't question the validity of premise
(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. Within the scope of the para. so, could be correct
(C) No matter how responsible psychologists are, they can never develop correct theoretical explanations. Change of tone by using "never"
(D) Responsible psychologists do not make predictions about how rats will perform in a mazeIswat
(E) Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists.
Reversing the Cause & effect.

Therefore, IMO B. It took me 2.3 min to ans this question
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 75

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10143

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2014, 08:51
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4659

Kudos [?]: 17588 [0], given: 1986

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2015, 21:10
Expert's post
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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?

(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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 17588 [0], given: 1986

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 33 [1], given: 20

Re: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2015, 06:23
1
KUDOS
Between B and E, I would go for B... E has a reverse of premises "Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect." ie, responsible Phycologists accepts possibility. But in E it states Phycologists who accepts possibility are responsible.. Its wrong..

Kudos [?]: 33 [1], given: 20

Manager
Status: Perspiring
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Posts: 115

Kudos [?]: 142 [1], given: 216

Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GPA: 3.6
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2015, 09:09
1
KUDOS
I have narrowed down to 2 options B & E.
Among the two I would go with E. It states that :
If Psychologist is responsible -> he/she will accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect.

Kudos [?]: 142 [1], given: 216

Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 237

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 175

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.19
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2015, 22:48
I guess correct answer should be E ..
B speaks about pschycologists doing experiment with rats . and E speaks in general about pschycologists .... Is this difference has caused OA to be B ?
_________________

Press +1 Kudos if you find this Post helpful

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 175

Intern
Joined: 16 May 2015
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2015, 21:02
The reason I picked B over E is because E simply restates Anson's argument, but the question asks for what can be inferred.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2014
Posts: 117

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 86

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2015, 22:54
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I guess correct answer should be E ..
B speaks about pschycologists doing experiment with rats . and E speaks in general about pschycologists .... Is this difference has caused OA to be B ?

Nope. I assume the difference between B and E has been rightly spotted by sheolokesh as quoted:

sheolokesh wrote:
Between B and E, I would go for B... E has a reverse of premises "Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect." ie, responsible Phycologists accepts possibility. But in E it states Phycologists who accepts possibility are responsible.. Its wrong..

This is based on deductive logic i.e. All X are Y...Inference Some Y are X. The reverse All Y are X need not be true unless X=Y

Specifically speaking, just because all responsible psychologists (RP) accept a certain fact (possibility of theories being incorrect), the reverse i.e. all those who accept this fact are RP need not necessarily be true. Hence, eliminate E

Going ahead, before we mark B convincingly, take note of the premises. Ladlow assumes that just because his theory can draw accurate predictions, his theory is correct. This is flawed as there is no concrete reason to assume that 'accuracy in results' and 'correct' are linked. Maybe the sample population of rats used by Ladlow in his experiments are unrepresentative of traits of other rats in general and hence his results are skewed. Moreover, accurate predictions is just a way to describe a trend of observations that are used to make up the experiment, and to claim the correctness of his theory on the basis of a particular trend in observations is definitely not warranted. Maybe, the objective of the theory is to establish that there actually exists uncertainty as to how rats perform in a maze and the observed trend in results is actually doing the opposite!!!Well I know I am kinda stretching this explanation too far This overall sentiment is rightly expressed by Anson and summed up in option B, which states that even if a psychologist draws accurate predictions (i.e. he presents a trend) the psycho cannot conclude that his theory cannot be disproved (i.e. the theory may not be correct in an absolute sense)

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 86

Intern
Joined: 28 Jul 2013
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 138

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.7
WE: Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2015, 23:58
1
KUDOS
(E) is incorrect.

Tall boys play football. This doesn't mean that all boys who play football are tall.
Replace tall boys with responsible psychologist, (E) is in correct.

Now only option left is (B), hence (B) is correct.

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 138

Intern
Joined: 28 Jul 2013
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 138

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.7
WE: Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2015, 23:58
(E) is incorrect.

Tall boys play football. This doesn't mean that all boys who play football are tall.
Replace tall boys with responsible psychologist, (E) is in correct.

Now only option left is (B), hence (B) is correct.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 138

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10143

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2015, 22:29
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1905

Kudos [?]: 539 [0], given: 23

Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2015, 00:52
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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?

(A) Dr. Ladlow's evidence that his theory generates consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze is inaccurate Anson argues that further studies could show that Ladlow's theory is inaccurate. We can't say that he's saying the theory is currently 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 This is essentially a paraphrase of the last sentence.
(C) No matter how responsible psychologists are, they can never develop correct theoretical explanations.Responsibility in this discussion pertains to awareness that theoretical explanations can be disproved, not to the ability to produce correct theoretical explanations.
(D) Responsible psychologists do not make predictions about how rats will perform in a maze The importance of responsibility is not related to making or not making predictions about this very specific topic. Responsibility refers to the level of confidence of psychologists in those predictions.
(E) Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists.This excludes the possibility that there are other criteria to be considered a responsible psychologist. The original statement implies that this acceptance is part of other characteristics of a responsible psychologist.
_________________

# Janielle Williams

Customer Support

Special Offer: \$80-100/hr. Online Private Tutoring
GMAT On Demand Course \$299
Free Online Trial Hour

Kudos [?]: 539 [0], given: 23

Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly   [#permalink] 07 Jul 2015, 00:52

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.