GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Dec 2019, 04:06

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 985
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75

### Show Tags

Updated on: 24 May 2019, 00:00
4
17
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

40% (02:19) correct 60% (02:12) wrong based on 443 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.

_________________

Originally posted by Marcab on 09 Dec 2012, 23:09.
Last edited by Bunuel on 24 May 2019, 00:00, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 299

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2012, 16:01
15
1
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

##### General Discussion
SVP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1919
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2012, 00:19
1
2
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.
_________________

Awesome Work | Honest Advise | Outstanding Results

Reach Out, Lets chat!
Email: info at gyanone dot com | +91 98998 31738 | Skype: gyanone.services
SVP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1919
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740

### 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.
_________________

Awesome Work | Honest Advise | Outstanding Results

Reach Out, Lets chat!
Email: info at gyanone dot com | +91 98998 31738 | Skype: gyanone.services
Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 216
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)

### 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
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 71

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2015, 06:23
1
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..
Manager
Status: Perspiring
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Posts: 81
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GPA: 3.6
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2015, 09:09
1
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.
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 226
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.19
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### 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 ?
Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2014
Posts: 81
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33

### Show Tags

20 May 2015, 22:54
1
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)
Intern
Joined: 28 Jul 2013
Posts: 6
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.7
WE: Business Development (Energy and Utilities)

### Show Tags

20 May 2015, 23:58
1
(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.
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1870

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2015, 00:52
1
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.
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2019
Posts: 5

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2019, 23:26
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.

This question shows a typical reasoning problem that many people encounter.
Given: A results in B.
WRONG: not A results in not B
CORRECT: not B results in not A

Back to the question: GIVEN: not accepting the possibility (A) -> not responsible (B)
Answer E is implying that not A (accept the possibility) -> not B (responsible). Therefore it's wrong.

The correction answer is B, which basically just paraphrases the given.
Re: Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstra   [#permalink] 18 Jan 2019, 23:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by