It is currently 23 Sep 2017, 09:45

# Happening Now:

Alleviate MBA app anxiety! Come to Chat Room #2

### 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

# CR - Weather forecast

Author Message
Director
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 794

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2005, 17:37
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 authorâ€™s position that the meteorologistsâ€™ 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 construc
_________________

Cheers, Rahul.

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 209 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 00:29
I believe (A) is the best answer.

Meteorologists's claim = precise weather forecast is possible

Author's claim = This mathematical model will make inadequate weather forecast (and will be blamed on imperfections)

Basis for counterattack = Precise weather forecast is possible thanks to certain unusual configurations of data (although nobody knows how it is possible, it is possible)

Kudos [?]: 209 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5210

Kudos [?]: 432 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 02:05
I agree. A

Kudos [?]: 432 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 02:24
I would go for B..

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 82

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 04:00
i take B by POE. it cant be A because A implies that : at times , with certain sets of data , it is possible to predict weather accurately, even when "the exact causal mechanisms are not understood. " --> which means that the results of a mathematical model dont justify the results produced by these sets of data. This choice does in no way state that the accurate mathematical models can be created...which is what the author is challenging.

Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
_________________

------------------------------

only if i could choose....

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 178

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 07:01
shud be B 'coz B states that there are earlier gains in the prediction due to gains in accuracy. Hence, its tested.
The author brushed off the meteorologists' claim saying their claim is immune to evaluation. Hence, we can say the above statement wakens the author's claim.

Krishna

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 07:06

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 122

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 07:34
I picked B because B shows that the predictive ability of the mathmatical model can be scrutinized. The exact opposite of what the author of the argument claims.
_________________

Chet

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 11:36
IMO B is the best answer by POE...but not very convincing...
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 13:57
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.

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.

I go with B. Why?
The passage talks about accurate mathematical model and weather forecast woth real precision. A talks about the "precise weather forecast" and "casual mechanisms that are not understood", which is the opposite to accurate mathematical model. B links the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models to the gains in precision of weather forecasts. And this link is done in a proper way.

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1704

Kudos [?]: 457 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 14:52
B is my pick.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 457 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 840

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 18:28
B as reasoned out by automan.

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 209 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 20:51
automan & anandsebastin //

I admit that (B) links the accuracy of the math model and the gains in the precision of weather forecast.

But still, (B) says that the math model is correct under a certain condition - a condition that is only supported by the earlier gains of weather forecast.

Therefore, according to (B), the math model is NOT PERFECT, and will be possibly blamed.

What do you think?

Kudos [?]: 209 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 331

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2005, 10:27
B for the same reasons cited.
GA

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 840

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2005, 20:36
gamjatang wrote:
automan & anandsebastin //

I admit that (B) links the accuracy of the math model and the gains in the precision of weather forecast.

But still, (B) says that the math model is correct under a certain condition - a condition that is only supported by the earlier gains of weather forecast.

Therefore, according to (B), the math model is NOT PERFECT, and will be possibly blamed.

What do you think?

Though the current model is not perfect, gains in accuracies have been directly related to improvements in the model. So, it follows that once the model is perfected, inaccuracies in forecast cannot be blamed on the model itself.
Hope that clears it up!

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 1

17 Sep 2005, 20:36
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
CR 12 26 Jan 2009, 00:50
1 cr 13 18 Jun 2008, 12:11
CR: 2 02 May 2008, 23:36
CR 10 06 Oct 2007, 04:52
CR 13 09 Oct 2007, 06:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by