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.
作者认为气象学家的说法是没法被评估论证的,因为任何的气象预测不准确都可以归因为模型的不精确
题目问削弱作者这一想法的选项,即证明气象学家说法可以被评估论证的选项是:
B:模型的精确度上升是可以带来预测的准确度上升的,两者之间存在因果关系。所以气象学家的观点是有据可循的。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论