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:
cr1000 meterologists [#permalink]
30 Oct 2005, 21:11
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.
12. Which of the following, if true, could best be used as a basis for arguing against the authorтАЩs position that the meteorologistsтАЩ 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: cr1000 meterologists [#permalink]
06 Nov 2005, 09:32
I would choose B here. The claim is that an inadequate forecast will be blamed on imperfections in the model. If it can be shown, that there exists a causality of accuracy of forecasts and precision of forecasts this claim can be weakened.