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?
Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts, even though the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
Most significant gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models are accompanied by clear gains in the precision of weather forecasts.
Mathematical models of the meteorological aftermath of such catastrophic events as volcanic eruptions are beginning to be constructed.
Modern weather forecasts for as much as a full day ahead are broadly correct about 80 percent of the time.
Meteorologists readily concede that the accurate mathematical model they are talking about is not now in their power to construct.
根据文章的意思,idle boast cannot be evaluated是因为精确的数学预测模型终究只是个幻想,而且每次预测失误都被认为和数学模型不够精确有关。那么当数学模型足够精确,那么这就不再是一个idle boast了,那么就can be evaluated了。然而b选项给予我们一些自信:数学模型精确度的提升往往和天气预测的准确性相关。据此我们可以认为足够精确的数学模型是可能成为现实的。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论