zoezhuyan wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
ankur_1988, the key to understanding why (B) is the correct answer is correctly interpreting the question, which is written in a kind of confusing way. Let's break the question down:
Quote:
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?
- First, we have the "meteorologists' claim": "if only they could design an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere with all its complexities, they could forecast the weather with real precision."
- Then, we have the "author's position" about the above claim (as stated in the question): "the meteorologists' claim cannot be evaluated."
- How does the author reach that position? By stating that: "any inadequate weather forecast would obviously be blamed on imperfections in the model."
Now we are asked to find an answer choice that could be used to argue
against the author's position. So, we need evidence that the meteorologists' claim
can be evaluated. With that in mind, let's go through the answer choices:
Quote:
(A) Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
Answer (A) provides information about how the mathematical models are constructed, but does not allow us to further evaluate the claim of the meteorologists. Because it does not answer our question, we can throw (A) out.
dear
AndrewN,
GMATRockstarHowdyPartnerGMATNinja,
GMATNinjaTwo,
I cannot understand A, for me, author says
any inadequate weather forecast would obviously be blamed on imperfections in the model.,
so if Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts, then model is less inadequate, then weaken the author's evidence, lending less power to conclusion that the model cannot be evaluated.
Hi
by the time experts reply, thank you for raising the query. I got a chance to try this question.
I immediately rejected A in my first reading. Please check , hope it is helpful:)
Quote:
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.
Step1: I personalized this argument. Someone is saying that he could design a perfect model that can predict forceast with real precision. On hearing this, my thought was how can it be? My thoughts were same as author's. Now I want to hear what other person has to say.
Step2: What is the question/point that he needs to answer me . This is very important step. because i held this thought while looking the options. ( marked in
red: meteorologists' claim cannot be evaluated.
please give me convincing reason that meteorologists' claim can be evaluated.
Step3: Hold this thought "claim can be evaluated? any relation with this thought"
Option A:
(A) Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
Certain unusual configurations of data --> some unusual data
can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts --> can be used for precise weather forecast.
This option is already in my red list now--> serve as basis --> Ok agree served as basis . then any relation with my tthought? --> can be evaluated or not? I don't know. Can be or can not be . --> this option doesn't give me answer of thought what I am looking for .
even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.--> what the heck is this? How does it matter? even I know exact mechanism or I don't know anything about mechanism. Why does it matter?
aboslutely wrong option.
Same process for optionB:
(B) Most significant
gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models
are accompanied by clear
gains in the precision of weather forecasts.
some relation to proportion. gain vs gain
So it can be evaluated? But seems some equation can be derived.
At least I find some relation of calculation
Thus I will keep this option on hold
Finally i found C , D and E are not even close my thought: evaluation or any relation or any equation .
hence B
I hope it helps.