Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathemat

Question

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, would cast the most serious doubt on the meteorologists’ boast?

(A) The amount of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is monitored closely and is known not to be constant.

(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of the atmosphere.

(C) As current models of the atmosphere are improved, even small increments in complexity will mean large increases in the number of computers required for the representation of the models.

(D) Frequent and accurate data about the atmosphere collected at a large number of points both on and above the ground are a prerequisite for the construction of a good model of the atmosphere.

(E) With existing models of the atmosphere, large scale weather patterns can be predicted with greater accuracy than can relatively local weather patterns.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

It's certainly a little tricky but this is how you go about solving it:

Read the question: What would cast the most serious doubt on the meteorologists’ boast?

First of all, what is the meteorologists’ boast?
It is that if they could design an accurate model of the atmosphere, they could forecast the weather with real precision.

We need to cast doubt on this i.e. we need to say that even if they design an accurate model of the atmosphere, they still may not be able to forecast weather with real precision. Focus on this - even if they do get an accurate model, they may not forecast accurately. We don't have to worry about how difficult it is to get an accurate model, the point is that even if we do get it, it may still not be possible to forecast accurately.

Let's look at the options:

(A) The amount of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is monitored closely and is known not to be constant.

It doesn't talk about atmosphere, model, weather or anything related to our question. We don't know how the energy from the Sun affects our variables so this option is out.

(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of the atmosphere.
This says that there is a continuing impact from other sources on the atmosphere. So even if there is an accurate model of the atmosphere, we may not be able to predict the weather accurately because of this impact. This helps cast doubt on the meteorologists’ boast. Answer.

(C) As current models of the atmosphere are improved, even small increments in complexity will mean large increases in the number of computers required for the representation of the models.
This talks about how difficult it is to get an accurate model. That is not our concern as discussed above.

(D) Frequent and accurate data about the atmosphere collected at a large number of points both on and above the ground are a prerequisite for the construction of a good model of the atmosphere.
This talks about how difficult it is to get an accurate model. That is not our concern as discussed above.

(E) With existing models of the atmosphere, large scale weather patterns can be predicted with greater accuracy than can relatively local weather patterns.
Existing models are not our concern here. So this option is out too.

mvictor · Answer

tough one...
this is a weaken type of question..I thought that, to weaken the meteorologists' boast, we need to find an answer choice that would tell us that it is not the imperfections of the model to be blamed for the inadequate weather forecast.
to weaken this argument, we need to identify an answer choice that would tell about things that can't be predicted or thought of/quantified before they appear. for ex. volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, solar storms, etc.

A. if we know this fact, then we can implement this information on the model. thus, if we have deviations, then it must be because of the imperfections of the model. - not good.
B - aha, so something that can't be predicted have major impact on the weather conditions. looks good.
C - number of computers needed to run the model is out of scope.
D - what is needed - is out of scope. what if we already have all this data? then definitely, there is smth wrong with the model, since we have everything we need to predict the weather patterns.
E - existing models - out of scope.

B looks good for me.

dcummins · Answer

Boast: if we can design an accurate mathematical model, we can forecast the weather with precision

Critique in stem: this can't be evaluated as any flaw in the model will be blamed on imperfections in it.

Weaken the boast - strengthen the critique?

A - difficult to see the impact this has
B - a number of things can't be quantified - this supports the notion that there are bound to be imperfections in the model
C - this doesn't impact the model accuracy.
D - so? Meteorologists could collect this...potentially
E - its hard to see how the differential in accuracy between the two patterns has an impact on a hypothetical model

anc · Answer

I am still not clear why Option B here is the correct answer. The meteorologist are of view that "if they could design an accurate model then they would be able to predict accurate weather" and option B says " Volcanic eruptions and other processes cannot be quantified. Therefore, it is difficult accurate model." This rather supports meteorologist statement that they cannot create a an accurate model.

siddharthkapoor · Answer

anc

Meteorologists are not saying that can not create an accurate model of atmosphere. All we know from the passage is that meteorologists believe that they can forecast the weather with accurate precision if they can design an accurate model of the atmosphere. We have to weaken their point that even if they manage to design a perfect model of atmosphere, it may still not be possible to forecast weather accurately.

(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of the atmosphere.

Option B points out that even if there is an accurate model of the atmosphere, it may not be possible to predict the weather accurately all the time because of inaccuracy in quantifying the impact of volcanic eruptions, etc.

I hope your doubt is clear now.

RK007 · Answer

gmatt1476 , This is the 221st question of the new GMAT advanced questions book. Can we have the official explanation of this question also please.

RK007 · Answer

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma daagh and other experts,
What is the significance of "with all its complexities" in this question? In the first round of going through the answer choices I rejected B because I thought it's possible that it may come under one of the 'complexities' mentioned in the passage.
Why is it placed there if it has no significance?
Please help me understand this point.
Thanks in advance

GMATNinja · Answer

Remember that meteorologists say they could forecast the weather with real precision if they could design an  accurate mathematical model  of the atmosphere with all its complexities.

Choice (B) casts doubt on this boast by pointing out processes that have a significant and continuing impact on the atmosphere, but  cannot be quantified.  If they can't be quantified, then they can't be part of a mathematical model and therefore cannot be lumped in with the "complexities" that these meteorologists have in mind.

I hope that helps!

Unknown_ · Answer

The question in the new GMAT Advanced Question Book has different options. Here is the link to the question you are referring to : https://gmatclub.com/forum/meteorologis ... 82455.html Hope this helps!

altairahmad · Answer

I had a similar issue. 'can not be quantified' can be taken to mean 'complexity' and something that can not be quantified is indeed a complexity. The meteorologists are talking of an ideal scenario and B is not air tight in that regard because the problems identified in B should already be taken care of when the model is finally developed.

Basically what the answer choice is saying is that 'since accurate model can not EVER be developed, the meteorologists will never accept the blame', while the question stem says about the meteorologists that 'if they can develop a model by overcoming ALL the problems that the model currently has, they can predict the atmospheric changes accurately'. I am no expert, but the argument and the supposed weakener seem to be going in circle.

What am I missing ?

CEdward · Answer

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, would cast the most serious doubt on the meteorologists’ boast?

(A) The amount of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is monitored closely and is known not to be constant.
This arguably strengthen the argument…’monitored closely’ presumably means that these data inputs are being checked/updated before they go into the model.

(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of the atmosphere.
Correct…this provides doubt that the meteorologists desired model would not be able to capture the complexities of the atmosphere (and hence forecast with precision) since we can’t quantify the influence of eruptions, combustion of fossil fuels, and other processes

(C) As current models of the atmosphere are improved, even small increments in complexity will mean large increases in the number of computers required for the representation of the models.
OK, a supplemental detail that neither strengths nor weakens, but explains why is needed to model correctly.

(D) Frequent and accurate data about the atmosphere collected at a large number of points both on and above the ground are a prerequisite for the construction of a good model of the atmosphere.
Like C), D) explains part of the argument

(E) With existing models of the atmosphere, large scale weather patterns can be predicted with greater accuracy than can relatively local weather patterns.
Existing models are unrelated to the desired model that the meteorologist wants…

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

This is the kind of question that is actually quitter simple and to-the-point even though it is a 700-level question. This is the perfect example to show you that all 700-level questions are not tough to crack. All you need to do is understand the argument and understand what you are expected to do.

Let’s look at the argument and get a better hang of what information is being given to us.

Some amount of whiteboarding really helps in gaining clarity.

Attachment:

Whiteboarding.jpg [ 65.18 KiB | Viewed 17557 times ]

So we need to find an option that says that designing an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere will not necessarily help us forecast the weather with real precision.

Let’s find this option!

(A) The amount of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is monitored closely and is known not to be constant.

Ok. This may be so. But does this information help us show that designing an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere will not necessarily help us forecast the weather with real precision? Nope! Eliminate!

(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of the atmosphere.

Now a lot of people tend to eliminate this option thinking that volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels and so on is not related to weather forecast. Let’s look closely. This option tells us that these random events have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of the atmosphere. This means that even if we had the most perfect mathematical model of the atmosphere, events like volcanic eruptions and the combustion of fossil fuels will affect or even alter the atmosphere in some way. This means the weather forecast may not be so precise after all. So even though at first glance it seems like this option is irrelevant, it helps us show that designing an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere will not necessarily help us forecast the weather with real precision. Select!

(C) As current models of the atmosphere are improved, even small increments in complexity will mean large increases in the number of computers required for the representation of the models.

When simplified, the only thing this option is telling us is that a lot of computers will be need to make a precise model of the atmosphere. Ok. Possible. But the only question you need to ask when you see any option is, “Does this information help us show that designing an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere will not necessarily help us forecast the weather with real precision?” It wont! Eliminate!

(D) Frequent and accurate data about the atmosphere collected at a large number of points both on and above the ground are a prerequisite for the construction of a good model of the atmosphere.

Again, the simplified version of this option is that we will need to collect a lot of data to make a good model. Sure! But this option is not weakening the argument at all. It just seems to be talking of what needs to be done to design that perfect model. Not interested. Eliminate!

(E) With existing models of the atmosphere, large scale weather patterns can be predicted with greater accuracy than can relatively local weather patterns.

This option is telling us that the perfect models already exist and weather patterns are being predicted with accuracy. So be it large scale weather patterns or local weather patterns, such models do help to forecast the weather with real precision. So this is actually strengthening the argument, right? Eliminate!

- Nitha Jay
GMAT Verbal SME

Sans8 · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB ,

Isn't the boast a necessary condition as shown by marker "ONLY IF". How can we weaken a necessary condition by showing that other thing is also a requirement.
In order to weaken a necessary condition we should say something else is a sufficient condition.

Pls help clarifying my doubts experts
 GMATNinja   AndrewN   AjiteshArun   ScottTargetTestPrep   ChiranjeevSingh

nisen20 · Answer

from the passage, we know that an accurate model has to incorporate all the complexities of the atmosphere,  otherwise the model is inaccurate .

the question wants to undermine a conclusion that only when such a model is acquired, we can forecast the weather accurately.
 
some experts interpreted option (B) as something new that can be inserted between premise and conclusion, claiming that with this new information, even if an accurate model can be acquired we still could not forecast accurately.

as far as i'm concerned, it is not an accurate model at all in that so many complexities stated in option (B) are ommited in designing process, leading to a funny scenario that option (B) is attacking the conclusion based on something inconsitent with the original premise.

Adarsh_24 · Answer

Yeah, the word complexities is very ambiguous. Why aren't the external factors like eruptions, combustion of fuels not part of these complexities? A bad question imo.

SomeOneUnique · Answer

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, would cast the most serious doubt on the meteorologists’ boast?

(A) The amount of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is monitored closely and is known not to be constant.

(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of the atmosphere.

(C) As current models of the atmosphere are improved, even small increments in complexity will mean large increases in the number of computers required for the representation of the models.

(D) Frequent and accurate data about the atmosphere collected at a large number of points both on and above the ground are a prerequisite for the construction of a good model of the atmosphere.

(E) With existing models of the atmosphere, large scale weather patterns can be predicted with greater accuracy than can relatively local weather patterns.

In simple words: The author claims an ideal model will exist because any imperfection in the weather forecast would be blamed on the model.
The model creator would not be present at multiple places to defend herself/himself.

We have to prove that a model could be perfect.

Option B is in line with the given argument because it claims an ever-changing data would need an ever-changing model; thus, the accuracy of the model will not be blamed on the model. Because B casts doubt on the conclusion, B is correct.

Option D also speaks about how data can be used to create a model but it does not discuss anything about the accuracy of the model; the main argument is mainly concerned with the model's accuracy and hence calls it a 'boast'. Thus D will not be correct.

Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathemat

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathemat

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards