Please expand explanations

@rockinrobinpa sure! Let's take a look. First, there is nothing to diagram in Zeida's statements as there are no conditional statements. Anson's on the other hand can be diagrammed. PR: Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect. RP ==> APNESTI not APNESTI ==> not RP The contrapositive of this principle is invoked from the information provided by Zeida: Dr. Ladlow has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct on the basis of his evidence, i.e. Dr Ladlow does not accept the possibility that new evidence will show that his theory is incorrect. C: Dr. Ladlow is not a responsible psychologist. Let's take a look at (A), (C) and (D). Remember, this is a must be true question so we are looking for an answer choice that is directly supported by 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. This is not supported by Anson's argument. All we know is that Dr. Ladlow's evidence does not conclusively prove that his theory is correct because the possibility exists that new evidence will show that his theory is incorrect. There is nothing mentioned about whether or not Dr. Ladlow's evidence is itself accurate. (C) No matter how responsible psychologists are, they can never develop correct theoretical explanations. It is not that they can never develop correct theoretical explanations but rather that responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence can subsequently refute their theories. (D) Responsible psychologists do not make predictions about how rats will perform in a maze. Again, not supported. It is not about what the predictions are about. It is about refusing to accept the possibility that new evidence will later show the prediction to be inaccurate. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.