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.

We need an option that says MET's argument can be evaluated. That is we will be able to find whether inadequate prediction was due to imperfect model OR MET's error.

But i could not find any such option..

I am not sure between (A) and (B). Some experts please help...

At first even i was confused b/e A & B but when i contemplated i realized that this is a WEAKEN ques as we have to argue against (weaken) the conclusion. i.e. we have say that MET's argument CAN be evaluated. How A & B solve this purpose ?

"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? "

This actually means "Which answer choice will strengthen the Meteorologists' Mathematical model of accuracy?"

(B) is the answer because it gives some evidence when tending to accuracy

@ArunangsuSahu:
We want to undermine that author's comment i.e. we want to say that MET's argument can be evaluated.

Now how does it mean that which option strengthens MET's point.

Recieved a PM on this one:

OA is B. I would be careful with this one. It is from 1000 CR and I have seen at least a couple of versions out there so it may not be the best one we have ever seen.

I do not personally like the way the second statement works with the first, this one would be clearer if the second statement had just said that they meteorologists are wrong instead of getting into bad forecasts being blamed on the math models.

Here is why it is B. The meteorologists say they just need an accurate math model of the atmosphere in order to forecast with precision. Essentially the author is saying that this cannot be true. So we want to weaken the author, so we say it is true. Which answer choice points us to the idea that it is true that with an accurate math model of the atmosphere will come a precise forecast?

B is the one. It says that gains in the accuracy of the math models are accompanied by clear gains in the precision of the forecast. So this pretty much exactly supports the meteorologists and weakens the author.

vikram - I too was looking for something to say that the meteorologists argument can be evaluated. That is what I meant above by the fact that I do not love how this argument works together. The correct answer is really buried by that last statement about blaming bad forecasts on the models.

Thanks David. I have one query regarding your statement below. Was the reason for your statement was that if second statement said "they meteorologists are wrong instead of getting into bad forecasts being blamed on the math models" then question will be to undermine author's conclusion (= MET's are always wrong except getting into bad forecasts being blamed on the math models). And now B would say that METs logic (more accurate model = better forecast) is correct and hence undermine author's argument.

David@VeritasPrep wrote: I do not personally like the way the second statement works with the first, this one would be clearer if the second statement had just said that they meteorologists are wrong instead of getting into bad forecasts being blamed on the math models.