|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 95
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 286
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Tricky...B?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 853
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 1
|
B
The question is about whether the claim can be evaluated.
Clear gains accompany improvements in the mathematical model. So, the claims can be evaluated with each improvement in the model till it is perfected.
Does that make sense at all? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 536
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
Straight B/
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
B 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1913
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
55
[0], given: 0
|
anandsebastin wrote: BThe question is about whether the claim can be evaluated. Clear gains accompany improvements in the mathematical model. So, the claims can be evaluated with each improvement in the model till it is perfected. Does that make sense at all?
yes, it does 
Go for B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
