扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATAdvanced-CR-22
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.
我感觉这个文本的逻辑类似于：
科学家说“给我一个支点我就能撬动地球。”但是这个观点是无法评价的，因为你找不到这个支点，也就不能说明到底是因为支点还没找到的问题还是因为这句话本身就是错的。但是如果给我一个衡量支点是不是真的找到了的办法，就有机会去判断当支点找到了，是不是就一定能撬动地球。
同理，这个文本的意思是，天气学家认为只要数学模型足够精确，就完全能够做出准确的天气预报（if only, 即精确的数学模型是准确的预报的充分条件）；author认为这个充分性很难证明，因为没有办法说一个模型是不是已经足够精确了；所以如果遇到了不准确的预报，既可以是因为数学模型不够准确，也可以是因为数学模型已经足够准确了但是并不是只有数学模型就够了（条件的充分性是错误的），可是由于我们没有判断数学模型准确与不准确的标准，也就无法在两种competing explanation中选择其一；
但是B选项转换了一种思路，不需要要求明确的precise mathematic models，但是只要证明出来trend（即，increase in mathematic models确实会带来更多precise forecasts）这样相当于加强了precise models->precise forecast这一种因果正相关关系，也就是加强因果联系。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论