Critical Reasoning

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.
(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 construct.


I don't have the OA. Please answer with reasoning.

IMO- B

The author's conclusion is that the models can't be tested because any inaccuracy would be blamed on flaws in the model. B remedies this by connecting improvements in the models with improved rates of accuracy with the predictions.

IMO A,
author says that the Meteorologists might blame the mathematical model for inadequate weather forecast.
A says that the unusual data configurations can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
This means even though the model is not perfect(exact causal mechanisms are not understood. ) the prediction is based on the data and so the Meteorologists can't blame it on the model

Vemuri wrote: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.
(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 construct.


I don't have the OA. Please answer with reasoning.

IMO B)

IMO A..........This is difficult

Author's position ----
imperfections in the model causes inadequate weather forecast

A - Unusual data configurations -------leads to wether forecast
Cause but no effect.

B. significant gains in the accuracy--------leads to gains in the precision of weather forecasts

No cause---------no effect........strengthens

Answer is A

Yeah, thanks guys. I think I fell for the trap answer

IMO: B

X=Accurate mathematical model
Y= Accurate weather forecast

Premise: Accurate mathematical models leads to Accurate weather forecast (X leads to Y)

Author's s conclusion: Inaccurate mathematical models leads to inaccurate weather forecast (NOT X LEADS TO NOT Y) which also implies (Y LEADS TO X)


Observation: Author's conclusion has been drawn incorrectly based on premise as it a false contrapositive. Therefore if we can strengthen our premise, the author's conclusion can be further weakened.

However the catch here is the impact of strengthening as both A and B strengthens our premise.

Out of A and B,

A: Strengthens our given premise that X leads to Y . Less impact on strenghtening our premise bec the phrase "certain" has been used.

B: Strengthens our given premise that X leads to Y . More impact on strenghtening our premise bec the phrase "most" has been used.


Tip in this qs: Identifying the what to strengthen and recognizing the degree of impact on strengthening.

Tough, tricky and a very good qs.Thx vemuri


Cheers
TJ

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.

The authors doubts the Met. conclusion ( forecast weather with real precision) because he / she believes that such precision can not be gained for accurate math models or the precision can not be measured

But B states that accuracy and precision are linked and that the change in accuracy can be measured from the change in precisions

so thats the ans

Guys I have the OA for this and it is B. This q is from 1000cr

Quite tricky. If several processes (such as Volcanic eruptions etc.) cannot be quantified, there would always be at least some imperfections in the model. B suggests that several processes (Volcanic eruptions, combustion of fossil fuels etc.) are important for constitution of the atmosphere, but "cannot be quantified with any accuracy". Since these processes "cannot be quantified with any accuracy", clearly it is not possible to develop "accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere".

This being the case, there would always be 'scope' for the meteorologists to blame the inadequate weather forecast on the imperfections in the model.

I also went for A as B looked strenghtner.Please let me know the answer and why.