- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:47 pm
#34133
Complete Question Explanation
Method-SN. The correct answer choice is (B)
As always, the first step in solving a problem is to know what each party said:
The question stem is a Method question that focuses on Anson's argument, which we know from the above used a conditional argument form.
Answer choice (A): No, Anson's comments were part of an observation based on Ladlow's actions, not a character attack. Commenting negatively on what someone does does not automatically make it a character attack.
Additionally, as Rachael noted below: " Answer choice (A) is attacking the source of the argument instead of the content. We don't see that in the stimulus. There's no personal attack on Dr. Ladlow--it's all about his argument. We don't know anything about him as a person. Think of source arguments as a type of insult to the person. Anson concludes he's not responsible, but he doesn't support that conclusion with attacks on Dr. Ladlow's character. Anson supports it by addressing the structure and style of Ladlow's opinion.
For this answer to be correct, you'd want to see reasoning that attacked him as a person, not him as a professional. For example, something that said he gambled on college basketball games therefore he wasn't a responsible psychologist. Or maybe that he had a child out of wedlock, therefore he wasn't a responsible psychologist. Those are the sorts of personal attacks that you would be looking for to choose answer choice (A).
You could imagine a similarly structured argument as follows:
Stacey is not eligible to drive. You have to be at least 16 to drive, and Stacey just turned 8.
It's not a personal attack on Stacey to say she can't drive. It's just an application of the rule that you have to be at least 16. Even though the stimulus here uses the word "responsible", it's still structured like an application of a general rule/principle."
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. A conditional relationship establishes a principle, and Anson applied that principle to the facts of Ladlow's situation to draw a conclusion.
Answer choice (C): There is no uncertain or ambiguous term in use here.
Answer choice (D): No facts were discredited. Instead, facts were used to draw a conclusion according to a principle.
Answer choice (E): No theoretical explanation was rejected.
Additionally, as Rachael notes below, "Answer choice (E) doesn't describe what we see in the stimulus. Anson doesn't reject the theory, he just says that Dr. Ladlow hasn't completely proved his theory."
Method-SN. The correct answer choice is (B)
As always, the first step in solving a problem is to know what each party said:
- Zelda begins by talking about Dr. Ladlow, saying he has proven that his theory makes accurate predictions about rats, and that on that basis, Ladlow claims his theory is "irrefutably" correct. Note how powerful that claim is: he's saying there's no way his theory is wrong.
Anson replies by laying out an argument in the following order: conclusion, premise, premise. And, it's an argument that uses a contrapositive to arrive at that conclusion. Let's take a look at that argument in reverse order, for clarity:
- Anson ends by invoking a conditional relationship: "Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect." Or, in diagram form:
RP = Responsible psychologists
ANE = accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect.
RP 
ANE
However, Ladlow has already claimed the theory is irrefutably correct (and in other words, cannot be disproved), and thus Ladlow is saying that he will not accept new evidence, or conditionally speaking:
ANE
This information triggers a contrapositive, resulting in Anson concluding that Ladlow is not a responsible psychologist:
RP
- Anson ends by invoking a conditional relationship: "Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect." Or, in diagram form:
The question stem is a Method question that focuses on Anson's argument, which we know from the above used a conditional argument form.
Answer choice (A): No, Anson's comments were part of an observation based on Ladlow's actions, not a character attack. Commenting negatively on what someone does does not automatically make it a character attack.
Additionally, as Rachael noted below: " Answer choice (A) is attacking the source of the argument instead of the content. We don't see that in the stimulus. There's no personal attack on Dr. Ladlow--it's all about his argument. We don't know anything about him as a person. Think of source arguments as a type of insult to the person. Anson concludes he's not responsible, but he doesn't support that conclusion with attacks on Dr. Ladlow's character. Anson supports it by addressing the structure and style of Ladlow's opinion.
For this answer to be correct, you'd want to see reasoning that attacked him as a person, not him as a professional. For example, something that said he gambled on college basketball games therefore he wasn't a responsible psychologist. Or maybe that he had a child out of wedlock, therefore he wasn't a responsible psychologist. Those are the sorts of personal attacks that you would be looking for to choose answer choice (A).
You could imagine a similarly structured argument as follows:
Stacey is not eligible to drive. You have to be at least 16 to drive, and Stacey just turned 8.It's not a personal attack on Stacey to say she can't drive. It's just an application of the rule that you have to be at least 16. Even though the stimulus here uses the word "responsible", it's still structured like an application of a general rule/principle."
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. A conditional relationship establishes a principle, and Anson applied that principle to the facts of Ladlow's situation to draw a conclusion.
Answer choice (C): There is no uncertain or ambiguous term in use here.
Answer choice (D): No facts were discredited. Instead, facts were used to draw a conclusion according to a principle.
Answer choice (E): No theoretical explanation was rejected.
Additionally, as Rachael notes below, "Answer choice (E) doesn't describe what we see in the stimulus. Anson doesn't reject the theory, he just says that Dr. Ladlow hasn't completely proved his theory."
