It is currently 24 Jun 2017, 21:00

GMAT Club Daily Prep

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Posts: 149
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.61
WE: Consulting (Manufacturing)
Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Jun 2013, 23:49
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

80% (02:57) correct 20% (00:51) wrong based on 48 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. Clearly-and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologists-the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth.

Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable

The rejection by the meteorologist of the statistician's conclusion employs which one of the following techniques of argumentation?

(A) supporting a conclusion about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization
(B) producing a single counterexample that establishes that a generalization is false as state
(C) reanalyzing a correlation as reflecting the multiple effects of a single cause
(D) rejecting a conclusion because it is a proposition that cannot be experimentally tested
(E) pointing out that potentially unfavourable evident has been systematically neglected

The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument

(A) rejects a partial explanation, not because it is incorrect but only because it is not complete
(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
(C) calls into question the existence of a correlation when the only real issue is that of how to interpret the correlation
(D) dismisses a hypothesis on the grounds that is fail to deal with any matters of scientific significant
(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample

Lets discuss these.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 183
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 00:33
cumulonimbus wrote:
Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. Clearly-and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologists-the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth.

Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable

The rejection by the meteorologist of the statistician's conclusion employs which one of the following techniques of argumentation?

(A) supporting a conclusion about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization
Correct : he has taken help of generalization "a system as complicated as that "
to oppose the meteorologist

(B) producing a single counterexample that establishes that a generalization is false as state
Wrong: [color=#0000ff]meteorologist has not pointed out any generalization [/color]
(C) reanalyzing a correlation as reflecting the multiple effects of a single cause
Wrong: [color=#0000ff]multiple causes of a single effect [/color]
(D) rejecting a conclusion because it is a proposition that cannot be experimentally tested
Wrong: [color=#0000ff]outside no question of experimentation [/color]
(E) pointing out that potentially unfavourable evident has been systematically neglected
Wrong: [color=#0000ff] nothing pointed out as unfavourable evident which is neglected[/color]
Lets discuss these.

IMO A.

Please let me know the ans...
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 183
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 02:54
cumulonimbus wrote:
Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. Clearly-and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologists-the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth.

Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable

The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument

(A) rejects a partial explanation, not because it is incorrect but only because it is not complete
Wrong:[color=#0000ff] not complete is never the case of rejection [/color]
(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
Contender [color=#ff00ff]need some help on this

[/color]

(C) calls into question the existence of a correlation when the only real issue is that of how to interpret the correlation
Wrong: Does not question the correlation
(D) dismisses a hypothesis on the grounds that is fail to deal with any matters of scientific significant
Wrong: Scientific significance is never mentioned
(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample
IMO: seems to be correct , he does not evaluate the example he is providing

Lets discuss these.

IMO B and E contenders ...need some expert help to elaborate on this
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 43
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 570 Q46 V23
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 04:30
1) a) is the answer cause he has based his argument/conclusion on the generalisation.
2) b) is the answer as it at least talks about the system.
_________________

VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1122
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 04:58
Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. Clearly-and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologists-the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth.

Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable

The rejection by the meteorologist of the statistician's conclusion employs which one of the following techniques of argumentation?

(A) supporting a conclusion(-"I disagree"-) about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization (-"no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable "-)
IMO A

The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument

(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion (-"Any professional meteorologist will tell you "-) without evaluating the merit of a putative counter example(-correct as he does not even consider the argument-)
IMO E

BukrsGmat, if you take a closer look at B and at what the meteorologist says, you'll see that the "structure" does not match.

(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable

The aeteorologist does not even take into consideration what is said before: he says "because every professional meteorologist says a thing, then it must be true".

Hope it helps
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 183
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 09:09
@Zarrolou,
Thanks for ur inputs .Even i after rereading it many times i found it is wrong...
below is my take:
Can u please tell if my understanding is correct

(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.

This has two parts:
Second part-- phenomena that exist only as part of the system
As the statistician claims that luminosity essentially controls but the meteorologist claims that it is the only cause , " that exist only as part of the system" part is correct

First Part -- that exist independently of a particular system :
This part is not correct.
"the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth. ": does not mean it works independent of others presence.
We actually don't know if it is dependent on something
Wrong

So the ans has two part one is wrong one i right So in total B is Wrong
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1122
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 09:32
BukrsGmat wrote:
@Zarrolou,
Thanks for ur inputs .Even i after rereading it many times i found it is wrong...
below is my take:
Can u please tell if my understanding is correct

(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.

This has two parts:
Second part-- phenomena that exist only as part of the system
As the statistician claims that luminosity essentially controls but the meteorologist claims that it is the only cause , " that exist only as part of the system" part is correct

First Part -- that exist independently of a particular system :
This part is not correct.
"the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth. ": does not mean it works independent of others presence.
We actually don't know if it is dependent on something
Wrong

So the ans has two part one is wrong one i right So in total B is Wrong

This is actually simpler, keep in mind that we have to judge the meteorologist's counterargument, so what the other guy says does not matter.

Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable.

The other guys gives him his opinion, but he says "it's wrong because everybody says so". Why this is questionable? Because appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counter example, as E states.

If you think about it, B is not the reason why the argument is questionable; I would say that B has no correct part as it does not reflect the "structure" of the respose.

Hope it's clear
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7440
Location: Pune, India
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 21:22
Responding to a pm:

cumulonimbus wrote:
Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. Clearly-and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologists-the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth.

Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable

The rejection by the meteorologist of the statistician's conclusion employs which one of the following techniques of argumentation?

(A) supporting a conclusion about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization
(B) producing a single counterexample that establishes that a generalization is false as state
(C) reanalyzing a correlation as reflecting the multiple effects of a single cause
(D) rejecting a conclusion because it is a proposition that cannot be experimentally tested
(E) pointing out that potentially unfavourable evident has been systematically neglected

A is correct. The meteorologist only says that a single variable cannot control a significant aspect of a complicated system. This is just a generalization he has invoked to support his conclusion on the sun's luminosity case.

cumulonimbus wrote:
The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument

(A) rejects a partial explanation, not because it is incorrect but only because it is not complete
(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
(C) calls into question the existence of a correlation when the only real issue is that of how to interpret the correlation
(D) dismisses a hypothesis on the grounds that is fail to deal with any matters of scientific significant
(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample

Lets discuss these.

Neither A nor B is correct. The answer is (E).

(A) - The first person says "the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth". It is not a partial explanation. He says that Sun's luminosity controls land temp. He gives a complete explanation of land temperature variance. According to the meteorologist, this is incorrect. One variable cannot control land temperature.

(B) - Why are we considering it at all? Sun's luminosity is a variable in the complex system of land temperature. Where are we segregating phenomena that exist independently and those that exist only as part of the system? No such discussion takes place.

(E) The first person gives a counterexample (Sun's luminosity controls land temp.) to the accepted opinion among meteorologists (which is contrary to this example and hence would be something like this: There are various factors that control land temp.). The meteorologist ignores the counterexample. He instead appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion (no one variable can control a complex system) by saying 'ask any meteorologist'. Since every meteorologist has the same opinion, it is authoritative. Hence (E) is correct.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 339
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Oct 2013, 05:33
Can somebody please explain the first paragraph in the passage. I don't see any contradiction. Although, I could still make out the answer.
Re: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well   [#permalink] 17 Oct 2013, 05:33
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 According to advertisements, the higher a suntan lotion’s sun 1 02 May 2017, 03:31
11 Raisins are made by drying grapes in the sun 5 11 Apr 2017, 06:18
8 There is little correlation between CEO compensation and the 8 19 Mar 2017, 15:33
14 The prevalence of a simian virus has been directly correlate 31 08 Feb 2016, 19:40
28 A survey recently revealed a high correlation between a 22 20 Jun 2017, 03:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by