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 about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization
(B) producing a single counterexample that establishes that a generalization is false as state
(C) reanalyzing a correlation as reflecting the multiple effects of a single cause
(D) rejecting a conclusion because it is a proposition that cannot be experimentally tested
(E) pointing out that potentially unfavourable evident has been systematically neglected
The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument
(A) rejects a partial explanation, not because it is incorrect but only because it is not complete
(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
(C) calls into question the existence of a correlation when the only real issue is that of how to interpret the correlation
(D) dismisses a hypothesis on the grounds that is fail to deal with any matters of scientific significant
(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample
Lets discuss these.![]()
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 about a specific case by invoking a relevant generalization
(B) producing a single counterexample that establishes that a generalization is false as state
(C) reanalyzing a correlation as reflecting the multiple effects of a single cause
(D) rejecting a conclusion because it is a proposition that cannot be experimentally tested
(E) pointing out that potentially unfavourable evident has been systematically neglected
The reasoning in the meteorologist's counterargument questionable because that argument
(A) rejects a partial explanation, not because it is incorrect but only because it is not complete
(B) fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as part of the system.
(C) calls into question the existence of a correlation when the only real issue is that of how to interpret the correlation
(D) dismisses a hypothesis on the grounds that is fail to deal with any matters of scientific significant
(E) appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample
Lets discuss these.