Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

CR: Here is another one. Would like an explanation please [#permalink]
23 Dec 2007, 07:00

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

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.

Last edited by tarek99 on 23 Dec 2007, 07:57, edited 1 time in total.

Re: CR: Here is another one. Would like an explanation ple [#permalink]
23 Dec 2007, 07:31

tarek99 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.

Re: CR: Here is another one. Would like an explanation ple [#permalink]
24 Dec 2007, 16:43

tarek99 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.

B for me too.

A) talks only about data, not the model
C) irrelevant
D) irrelevant
E) irrelevant

Only B talks about the increase in accuracy of models and corresponding increase in the precision of weather forecasts.

Re: CR: Here is another one. Would like an explanation ple [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 02:29

The authors say that it is impossibile to evaluate meteorologists' claim in that every inadequate forecast would be caused by an imperfection in the model. But the problem is not the imperfection..it is the inability of meteorologist...why not E??? what's OA?????

B.
Meteorologists claim that an accurate mathematical model of atmosphere could result in precise forecast of the weather. The author says this claim cannot be evaluated because any inadequate forecast would be blamed on inaccuracy of the model.
But, if it is known that with every improvement in the model is clearly measurable in terms of the precision of forecast, that is to say that there exists a clear relationship between accuracy of the model and precision of forecasts, author's claim stands false.

Re: CR: Here is another one. Would like an explanation ple [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 22:08

go for B,

tarek99 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.----->

neutral, the author speaks about an accurate mathematical model with all its complexities, the answer choice is about some approximation of accurate mathematical model.

(B) Most significant gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models are accompanied by clear gains in the precision of weather forecasts.---->

B says that precise weather forecast is authomatic result of accurate mathematical model (whenever there is A, there is B). This makes the criticism (blue text) obsolete.

(C) Mathematical models of the meteorological aftermath of such catastrophic events as volcanic eruptions are beginning to be constructed. ---->

irrelevant

(D) Modern weather forecasts for as much as a full day ahead are broadly correct about 80 percent of the time.---->

irrelevant

(E) Meteorologists readily concede that the accurate mathematical model they are talking about is not now in their power to construct.--->