Changes in the Sun's luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. Clearly-and contrary to accepted opinion among meteorologists-the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth.
Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable
The rejection by the meteorologist of the statistician's conclusion employs which one of the following techniques of argumentation?
(A) supporting a conclusion(-"I disagree"-) about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization (-"no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable "-)
IMO A
The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument
(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion (-"Any professional meteorologist will tell you "-) without evaluating the merit of a putative counter example(-correct as he does not even consider the argument-)
IMO E
BukrsGmat, if you take a closer look at B and at what the meteorologist says, you'll see that the "structure" does not match.
(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable
The aeteorologist does not even take into consideration what is said before: he says "because every professional meteorologist says a thing, then it must be true".
Hope it helps
Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable
The rejection by the meteorologist of the statistician's conclusion employs which one of the following techniques of argumentation?
(A) supporting a conclusion(-"I disagree"-) about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization (-"no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable "-)
IMO A
The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument
(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion (-"Any professional meteorologist will tell you "-) without evaluating the merit of a putative counter example(-correct as he does not even consider the argument-)
IMO E
BukrsGmat, if you take a closer look at B and at what the meteorologist says, you'll see that the "structure" does not match.
(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
Meteorologist: I disagree. Any professional meteorologist will tell you that in a system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable
The aeteorologist does not even take into consideration what is said before: he says "because every professional meteorologist says a thing, then it must be true".
Hope it helps