Critical Reasoning

After observing the Earth’s weather patterns and the 11-year sunspot cycle of the Sun for 36 years, scientists have found that high levels of sunspot activity precede shifts in wind patterns that affect the Earth’s weather. One can conclude that meteorologist will be able to improve their weather forecasts based on this information.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) Weather forecasts are more detailed today than they were 36 years ago.

(B) Scientists can establish that sunspot activity directly affects the Earth’s weather.

(C) Evidence other than sunspot activity has previously enabled meteorologists to forecast the weather conditions that are predictable on the basis of sunspot activity.

(D) Scientist have not determined why the sunspot activity on the Sun follows an 11-year cycle.

(E) It has been established that predictable wind patterns yield predictable weather patterns.

Please explain.

kanha81 wrote:After observing the Earth’s weather patterns and the 11-year sunspot cycle of the Sun for 36 years, scientists have found that high levels of sunspot activity precede shifts in wind patterns that affect the Earth’s weather. One can conclude that meteorologist will be able to improve their weather forecasts based on this information.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) Weather forecasts are more detailed today than they were 36 years ago.

(B) Scientists can establish that sunspot activity directly affects the Earth’s weather.

(C) Evidence other than sunspot activity has previously enabled meteorologists to forecast the weather conditions that are predictable on the basis of sunspot activity.

(D) Scientist have not determined why the sunspot activity on the Sun follows an 11-year cycle.

(E) It has been established that predictable wind patterns yield predictable weather patterns.

Please explain.

A), D), and E) are out of scope.

B) is additional information not weakening.

C) It implies that sunspot activity is already being used for weather forecast. Hence, it is possible that new information is already in use for weather forecast. My answer.

OA please.

IMO E

look at the conclusion!

Forecasting would be improved...
but already winds are predictable!

IMO - E

There is no need to study sunspot to improve the weather patterns because predictable wind patterns yield predictable weather patterns

kanha81 wrote:After observing the Earth’s weather patterns and the 11-year sunspot cycle of the Sun for 36 years, scientists have found that high levels of sunspot activity precede shifts in wind patterns that affect the Earth’s weather. One can conclude that meteorologist will be able to improve their weather forecasts based on this information.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) Weather forecasts are more detailed today than they were 36 years ago.

(B) Scientists can establish that sunspot activity directly affects the Earth’s weather.

(C) Evidence other than sunspot activity has previously enabled meteorologists to forecast the weather conditions that are predictable on the basis of sunspot activity.

(D) Scientist have not determined why the sunspot activity on the Sun follows an 11-year cycle.

(E) It has been established that predictable wind patterns yield predictable weather patterns.

Please explain.

My choice: I could not find one.

sunspot activity -> wind patterns -> weather patterns.
We know that sunspot activity affects wind patterns somehow and that that somehow affects weather patterns. However, forecasting requires some sense about _how_ the patterns are being affected, and not just that they are. A,B,E all strengthens the argument while D is out of scope. I would probably pick C on the exam since it isn't obviously wrong at first glance, but I'm not quite sure how it fits.

would go for C.

we need to weaken the conclusion that predictions based on sunspot activity will help meteorologists to improve weather forcast

A. out of scope.

B. doesnt weaken

C. either other evidences or sunspot activity can be used equally well to predict weather patterns=>they are substitutes=>sunspot activity based predictions no better=>cant say if weather forecasts can be improved.

D. out of scope. the issue is not why sunspot cycles occur every 11 yrs but whether predictions based on sunpot cycles can improve forecasts

E. out of scope. doesnt talk of sunspot activity based predictions

thetrystero wrote:

kanha81 wrote:After observing the Earth’s weather patterns and the 11-year sunspot cycle of the Sun for 36 years, scientists have found that high levels of sunspot activity precede shifts in wind patterns that affect the Earth’s weather. One can conclude that meteorologist will be able to improve their weather forecasts based on this information.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) Weather forecasts are more detailed today than they were 36 years ago.

(B) Scientists can establish that sunspot activity directly affects the Earth’s weather.

(C) Evidence other than sunspot activity has previously enabled meteorologists to forecast the weather conditions that are predictable on the basis of sunspot activity.

(D) Scientist have not determined why the sunspot activity on the Sun follows an 11-year cycle.

(E) It has been established that predictable wind patterns yield predictable weather patterns.

Please explain.

My choice: I could not find one.

sunspot activity -> wind patterns -> weather patterns.
We know that sunspot activity affects wind patterns somehow and that that somehow affects weather patterns. However, forecasting requires some sense about _how_ the patterns are being affected, and not just that they are. A,B,E all strengthens the argument while D is out of scope. I would probably pick C on the exam since it isn't obviously wrong at first glance, but I'm not quite sure how it fits.

Read this again and I'm seeing it now. The keyword here is "improve".
If there're currently other methods yielding same or better information than that provided by sunspot data, then this new discovery isn't necessarily a better option. C it is. searching for the wind-weather link totally threw me.

thetrystero wrote:

kanha81 wrote:After observing the Earth’s weather patterns and the 11-year sunspot cycle of the Sun for 36 years, scientists have found that high levels of sunspot activity precede shifts in wind patterns that affect the Earth’s weather. One can conclude that meteorologist will be able to improve their weather forecasts based on this information.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) Weather forecasts are more detailed today than they were 36 years ago.

(B) Scientists can establish that sunspot activity directly affects the Earth’s weather.

(C) Evidence other than sunspot activity has previously enabled meteorologists to forecast the weather conditions that are predictable on the basis of sunspot activity.

(D) Scientist have not determined why the sunspot activity on the Sun follows an 11-year cycle.

(E) It has been established that predictable wind patterns yield predictable weather patterns.

Please explain.

My choice: I could not find one.

sunspot activity -> wind patterns -> weather patterns.
We know that sunspot activity affects wind patterns somehow and that that somehow affects weather patterns. However, forecasting requires some sense about _how_ the patterns are being affected, and not just that they are. A,B,E all strengthens the argument while D is out of scope.

I went from A to E and crossed out all of them!

thetrystero wrote:I would probably pick C on the exam since it isn't obviously wrong at first glance, but I'm not quite sure how it fits.

I asked the same question, but the OA is [spoiler][C][/spoiler]. So, your guess would have worked.

It's pretty clear to be option C