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 am confused between A and B....
OA after some responses....thanks !!

I would go with B. Argument seems more robust than A. But definitely not an easy question.

I agree its B.

The question asks for an option that could be used as a basis for arguing that the meteorologist's claim can be evaluated.
B clearly fits the bill, since it says that gains in the precision of weather forecasts indicate the accuracy of the model used.

how u ppl eliminated A ? It can also be used to evaluate the argument.

abhijeetsinghai wrote:how u ppl eliminated A ? It can also be used to evaluate the argument.

OK the questions says,
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?

So we are looking for the best option here.
Though A can be used, it lacks clarity and is not a firm basis for arguing.
Note the use of the word can and the reference to exact causal mechanisms that cannot be fully understood.
Now compare this with what's mentioned in B. See the difference?

I am more inclined to go for A though. We need an answer to argue against the author's position that the forecast cannot be evaluate.

To evaluate something you would need some data points and argument A. provides that. Based on the unusual configuration of data (as basis of precise whether) we can evaluate whether the model is accurate or not by feeding in different data.

Whats the OA ?

OA: B

Thanks everybody !!

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

Please correct me if i am wrong but is'nt A strengthens the argument.

It simply says certain data can be used eventhough it does not clearly show how the relations work
So w/o understanding the relations here how can one expect a mathematical model to be construted...I think it simply means

It is like saying
'When there is a rain in chile,new york 10 days later it rains in my city hmm...I really do know how it happens'

When there is a mathematical model involved
'If it rains in nearby city of A some low pressure develops in some 50 mile radius so due to that so and so happens' in this case there is a causal explanation arising from a mathematical model


Due correct me if i am wrong on this explanation

I'm going with B.