Economists often evaluate a theory in terms of how consistently and accurately it predicts what happens. Implicit in this position is the belief that
A)if the theory's predictions are consistently accurate, then there is a fairly good chance that the theory is a good explanation of how things work.
B)if the theory's predictions are consistently imaccurate, then there is a fairly good chance that the theory will be accepted by others.
C)if the theory's predictions are consistently inaccurate, then there is a fairly good chance that the theory's assumptions (even if they initially seem unrealistic)capture something that is essential to explaining what it is that the theory is trying to explain.
D)if the theory's predictions are consistently accurate, then the theory is definitely valid.

Question

Economists often evaluate a theory in terms of how consistently and accurately it predicts what happens.  Implicit in this position is the belief that
A)if the theory's predictions are consistently accurate, then there is a fairly good chance that the theory is a good explanation of how things work.
B)if the theory's predictions are consistently imaccurate, then there is a fairly good chance that the theory will be accepted by others.
C)if the theory's predictions are consistently inaccurate, then there is a fairly good chance that  the theory's assumptions (even if they initially seem unrealistic)capture something that is essential to explaining what it is that the theory is trying to explain.
D)if the theory's predictions are consistently accurate, then the theory is definitely valid.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statement clearly states that economists evaluate a theory based on how consistently and accurately it predicts what happens. Therefore, option A is the best choice, as it logically follows that consistent and accurate predictions increase the likelihood that the theory is a good explanation of how things work.

Economists Often Evaluate a Theory in Terms of How Consistently