মেনু
QB Archive Quiz Creator Graph Poll Mode View Ques Quiz Leaderboard About
থিম নির্বাচন

আপনার পছন্দের থিম বেছে নিন।

Download Address Academy - Best Offline Education App

Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the overall correctness of the total set of one's beliefs is: never change that set, except by rejecting a belief when given adequate evidence against it. However, if this were the only rule one followed, then whenever one were presented with any kind of evidence, one would have to either reject some of one's beliefs or else leave one's beliefs unchanged. But then, over time, one could only have fewer and fewer beliefs. Since we need many beliefs in order to survive, the statisticians' claim must be mistaken. The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

A. presumes, without providing any justification, that the surest way of increasing the overall correctness of the total set of one's beliefs must not hinder one's ability to survive
B. neglects the possibility that even while following the statisticians' rule, one might also accept new beliefs when presented with some kinds of evidence
C. overlooks the possibility that some large sets of beliefs are more correct overall than are some small sets of beliefs
D. takes for granted that one should accept some beliefs related to survival even when given adequate evidence against them
Poster Download
DUIBAমানসিক দক্ষতা(IQ)বিশ্লেষণমুলক ও সিদ্ধান্ত গ্রহণের ক্ষমতাIQ-3 (Topic Practice)DU - ⚡ অনলাইন প্রশ্নব্যাংক দেখুন 💥
Join Telegram
Explanation: The argument's structure is: Premise: Statisticians' rule: only **reject** beliefs, never add. Premise: If this were the **only** rule, the number of beliefs would decrease over time. Premise: Many beliefs are needed for survival. Conclusion: The statisticians' rule is mistaken. The flaw is in the premise 'if this were the **only** rule one followed.' The statisticians only claimed their rule is the *surest way to increase correctness*, not that it must be the *only rule* to follow. The argument explicitly says the situation is 'If this were the only rule'. Therefore, the author is vulnerable to the criticism that they neglected the possibility that one could **also accept new beliefs** alongside the statisticians' rule, which only focuses on increasing correctness by removing incorrect beliefs. The argument's conclusion (it must be mistaken) rests on the assumption that adding beliefs is not permitted.