It is impossible to believe scientific predictions that a long "nuclea

Question

It is impossible to believe scientific predictions that a long "nuclear winter" would envelop the Earth as a result of nuclear war. Atmospheric scientists and weather experts cannot reliably and accurately predict tomorrow's weather. Yet the effect of nuclear explosions on local and worldwide atmospheric conditions must 'follow the same laws that control everyday weather changes. If the weather cannot be predicted with present knowledge, neither can a nuclear-winter scenario.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument made above that if scientists cannot reliably predict the daily weather, their predictions of a "nuclear winter" cannot be believed?

(A) The scientific theory of a nuclear winter uses data that is available to those who forecast the daily weather. 
(B) Scientists' predictions about a nuclear winter are necessarily speculative, since they cannot be verified by harmless experimentation. 
(C) Weather forecasters usually do not insist that their predictions are infallible. 
(D) Scientific predictions of catastrophic natural events such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes usually have less reliability than everyday weather predictions. 
(E) The scientific theory of a nuclear winter is concerned with drastic climatic changes rather than day-to-day fluctuations in the weather.

IanStewart · Answer

The argument says normal weather and nuclear winter are similar, and concludes that if normal weather is unpredictable, so is nuclear winter. To weaken that argument, we need a reason to think normal weather and nuclear winter are different in some important respect. Only A and E even compare the two, and A says the two are similar (use the same data), which is the opposite of what we want, so E is the right answer.

KeyurJoshi · Answer

Hi, isnt B also weakening the conclusion by saying that predictions about nuclear winter need to be speculative since they cannot be verified by harmless experiments whereas day-to-day weather can be verified by harmless experiments. So there's a reason to believe the scientist's predictions about nuclear weather.

Or is this just out of scope. Please help..

I chose B under a minute thinking that E is more of a generalization and does not affect the argument very much.

Or is this just out of scope. Please help..

I chose B under a minute thinking that E is more of a generalization and does not affect the argument very much.

IanStewart · Answer

B says scientists can't collect any data about nuclear winter. That's a reason to disbelieve their predictions even more, so it strengthens the argument, rather than weakens it.

If instead there was an answer choice that told us scientists can somehow obtain more information about nuclear winter than they can about the weather, then there'd be a reason to have more confidence in their predictions about nuclear winter, so if an answer said the opposite of what B says, then it could be the right answer here.

ravigupta2912 · Answer

(A) The scientific theory of a nuclear winter uses data that is available to those who forecast the daily weather. -- Eliminate. This actually strengthens the argument.

(B) Scientists' predictions about a nuclear winter are necessarily speculative, since they cannot be verified by harmless experimentation. -- Same as A (strengthener). Eliminate.

(C) Weather forecasters usually do not insist that their predictions are infallible. -- Irrelevant. Even if they do not, the point is that predictions are not always accurate. We are not concerned with their own opinion on the accuracy of their prediction but rather the outcome. Eliminate.

(D) Scientific predictions of catastrophic natural events such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes usually have less reliability than everyday weather predictions. -- Irrelevant. "Nuclear winter" is not a "natural event". Eliminate.

(E) The scientific theory of a nuclear winter is concerned with drastic climatic changes rather than day-to-day fluctuations in the weather. -- Correct. This says that weather may still be unpredictable but the long term climate may not.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

It is impossible to believe scientific predictions that a long "nuclea

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

It is impossible to believe scientific predictions that a long "nuclea

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