Statistician: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly we

Question

Statistician: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. Clearly-and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologist's, 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

(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 it fails to deal with any matters of scientific significant

(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample

maaverick · Answer

I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand the question 

" The reasoning in the meteorologistâ€™s counterargument questionable because that argument."  Is there something missing here? Any pointers on how to interpret this question?

HongHu · Answer

You are supposed to complete this sentence with one of the choices given.

ywilfred · Answer

Honghu, how does (E) -appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample - tie in to the answer? :-D

HongHu · Answer

The statistician concluded that the sun control earth's temperature with a regression. The meteologist dismiss this claim, not after debating why it is wrong, but to appeal to the authority of other meterologists' opinion, saying that they all agree it is impossible.

An example could be this:

A: I found some evidences that lead me to suspect that the scientists are wrong in saying that the earth is round.
B: But all the scientists say that the earth is round.
What B should have done is to look at A's evidences and refute them on their own merit. For all we know all the scientists could be wrong.

ywilfred · Answer

Honghu, I can't find anything in the passage that appeals to the authority of other meterologist's opinion. In fact, it seesm most of the other meteorologists believe that the sun controls earth's temperature (exactly how, we do not know). This is given to us in the statistician's claim "and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologists"

HongHu · Answer

The statician says: Contrary to what meterologists believe, the sun controls earth's temperature. This implies that meterologists don't believe the sun controls the earth's temperature.

And then the meteologist says: Any meteologist will tell you etc etc. He was trying to use the opinion of any meterologist as the authority to refute the statistican's argument, without really look into his argument.

It's like when two children argues about whether C is a bad guy. 
A: I don't think C is a bad guy.
B: But my dad says he is!

chunjuwu · Answer

Yes, HongHu.

The OA is really E. I adimire your brilliant.

Also please give me more explanation to refute A.

I didn't see any error in vprabhala's reasoning before.

Sometimes correcting the wrong answer is more important than picking the right answer.

Thanks :wink:

HongHu · Answer

A would be correct if this is how the argument goes:

A: The sun is one of the factors that affect the earth temperature.
B: That is not right. There are other factors.

However in our question it goes like this:
A: Essentially the sun is the only factor that affect the earth temperature.
B: All the meteologists will tell you that this is not right.

ywilfred · Answer

A says "rejects a partial explanation, not because it is incorrect, but only because it is not complete". But in the first statement by the statistician, is there really an explanation. There doesn't seem to be one, as he's just stating a correlation he observed, and using which he made some conclusion. So I think we can reject (A) on this basis.

richirish · Answer

10 second question if you know what "logical fallacies are" ; it is a clear appeal to authority case - "many meteorologist..", citing an authoritative source to bolster the argument without actually countering the facts

TBT · Answer

How are B and c wrong here? Couldn't get it

unraveled · Answer

Please see below.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Statistician: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly we

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

Statistician: Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly we

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