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.
气象学家说,只有模型准确,预报才能准确;
作者说,这太扯了,那不是所有预报的不准都可以拿模型不准当借口了?
问如何削弱作者的观点。作者其实是觉得预报的不准和模型不准没关系,所以才不能把模型当借口,B项确认了模型准确度和预报准确度的正相关关系,即削弱了作者观点
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论