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“只有模型够精准,天气预报才会精准”,【也就是说气象学家认为天气预报准不准与模型懂得精密度存在正比关系】。而作者认为这么说没有屁用,因为“每当天气预报不精准的时候,气象学家就可以责怪模型不够精准”,【这里作者的意思是他认为天气预报不准不一定是模型不准啊,也可能是你气象学家往模型里面代入的数据不准——也就是说作者认为天气预报准不准与模型精不精确没有关系】
问削弱作者的观点,也就削弱【天气预报准不准和模型精确度没有关系】
B项 明确说明两者有关系
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论