Zeida explains that Dr. Ladl"ow showed that his theory about the determinants of rat behavior generates consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze. Based on this, Dr. Ladlow claims that his theory is irrefutably correct.
Anson repsonds by referencing the principle that "responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect." Anson uses this principle as evidence that Dr. Ladlow is not a responsible psychologist since he has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct, while the principle states that a responsible psychologist always accepts the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Jeff-WillisJanuary 4, 2019
Why is A incorrect? Is it not an attack on his character to imply that he is not a responsible psychologist?
RaviJanuary 5, 2019
@Jeff-Willis,
Great question! Let's go through this answer choice, as well as why B is correct.
The argument that Anson makes is
responsible psychologist - ->accept the possibility of new evidence showing theories are incorrect
Anson supports his conclusion that Dr. Ladlow is not a responsible psychologist by showing that Ladlow fails the necessary condition of his principle (Ladlow fails to accept the possibility of new evidence showing theories are incorrect).
Answer A is incorrect because we can't infer that Anson bases his conclusion about this. Although Anson's conclusion may sound like an attack on Dr. Ladlow's character because he says he's not a responsible psychologist, the reason that he concludes this is because Ladlow fails the necessary condition of the principle Anson laid out.
Answer B is correct because Anson applies the general principle discussed above in establishing his conclusion. Because Ladlow fails the necessary condition in Anson's principle, he also fails the sufficient condition, leading Anson to conclude that Ladlow is not a responsible psychologist.
Does this make sense? In order for A to have been correct, we would not have seen any principle in Anson's argument. Anson's response would have instead been something like, "Dr. Ladlow is really mean and is a liar, so there's no way he's a responsible psychologist."
