|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 215
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
100CR - Meteorologists [#permalink]
 05 Apr 2007, 11:26
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere with all its complexities, they could forecast the weather with real precision. But this is an idle boast, immune to any evaluation, for any inadequate weather forecast would obviously be blamed on imperfections in the model.
which of the following, if true, could best be used as a basis for arguing against the author’s position that the meteorologists’ claim cannot be evaluated?
(A) Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
(B) Most significant gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models are accompanied by clear gains in the precision of weather forecasts.
(C) Mathematical models of the meteorological aftermath of such catastrophic events as volcanic eruptions are beginning to be constructed.
(D) Modern weather forecasts for as much as a full day ahead are broadly correct about 80 percent of the time.
(E) Meteorologists readily concede that the accurate mathematical model they are talking about is not now in their power to construct.
Pleae explain the answer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 366
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Is it B?
(B) Most significant gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models are accompanied by clear gains in the precision of weather forecasts.
If a certain degree of accuracy in the model requires certain degree of gain in the precision of weather forecasts (and hence the model is able to predict weather up to that certain degree) then the meteorologists cannot blame the model for not being able to predict weather that require higher level of precision. The model advanced along with the gain in precision of weather forecasts and so, if there was no further gain in the precision, then there would be no further gain in the accuracy of the model also. So they would have no basis to blame the model for not being 100% super precise about every weather.
Kinda hard to explain... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 199
Location: California
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: 100CR - Meteorologists [#permalink]
06 Apr 2007, 00:12
surbab wrote: Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere with all its complexities, they could forecast the weather with real precision. But this is an idle boast, immune to any evaluation, for any inadequate weather forecast would obviously be blamed on imperfections in the model.
which of the following, if true, could best be used as a basis for arguing against the author’s position that the meteorologists’ claim cannot be evaluated?
(A) Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
(B) Most significant gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models are accompanied by clear gains in the precision of weather forecasts.
(C) Mathematical models of the meteorological aftermath of such catastrophic events as volcanic eruptions are beginning to be constructed.
(D) Modern weather forecasts for as much as a full day ahead are broadly correct about 80 percent of the time.
(E) Meteorologists readily concede that the accurate mathematical model they are talking about is not now in their power to construct.
Pleae explain the answer...
B?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 100CR - Meteorologists
[#permalink]
06 Apr 2007, 00:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
