#4 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[Khodi7531]

On test day I circled E but on my review I circled A.


What's crucial to the success of a model by the authors POV can be found from line 46 to the end of the passage. Where he address long term average of atmospheric temperature eventually change raising the equilibrium.


I feel like I had the correct idea in my head when approaching the answer choices but wasn't able to locate one I really liked. So I circled A because it sounded ok and I was trying to not waste much time on a passage with 5 questions.


Thoughts?

[tae.chung5]

I was debating between C and E, but luckily chose E during my practice test. I had the most trouble eliminating (C). Below is my though process for the answer choices. I'm no LSAT expert, don't count me on this.

(A) "In the last few years" seems too short. The passage discussed about climate changes over multiple decades.
(B) The author never mentioned that the prediction was on "simple framework."
(C) The model was never revised, but only strengthened with additional findings. If we were to say "revised," I think the model should change its prediction - for example, the climate warming is actually normal or greenhouse effect is not a factor. To support that the model was only strengthened, refer to the use of words "reinforced" (LN 3) and "strengthened" (LN 12).
(D) Fit between warming "mechanism" and " those generally acknowledged" are not the main point. The passage is focusing on the prediction and actuality in temperature increase.
(E) Unlike choice (A), it specifies the Long-Term match. Also, the passage is talking about the temperature estimate and actual data. The fact that the author thinks this as a success is supported by repeated mentions about consistency . (LN 34 & LN 54)

[Brook Miscoski]

Hi, Khodi and tae.

This question requires you to identify the author's perspective on what makes a successful global warming model of the past 100 years. You may have noticed that the second and third paragraphs were spent discussing models of recent warming, so that is where you will find support for the answer.

During your initial read, you should use the VIEWSTAMP method (different points of view, structure, tone, arguments, and main point). You would note that the second paragraph discussed problems and opposition to global warming models based on greenhouse effects, and the third paragraph discusses an opposing models based on solar energy. The author evaluates the methods and chooses a side.

Looking at the second paragraph, the conflicting viewpoints concerned whether the models made accurate predictions, and the resolution was that the models were improved so that their predictions matched observed temperatures. Looking at the third paragraph, the author is unfavorable towards the solar energy models because those models do not make predictions that match observed temperatures.

Your reaction should be that the author cares very much about whether the model predictions match observed temperatures. That is Answer Choice (E).

Answer Choice (A) can be eliminated because the question and the passage concerned the last 100 years.
Answer Choice (B) can be eliminated because the author cares about accuracy, not what the predictions are.
Answer Choice (C) can be eliminated because the author cares about the accuracy of the predictions, not whether the model was adjusted.
Answer Choice (D) can be eliminated because the author's focus is on the accuracy of predictions, not the minutia of the mechanism that leads to global warming.

I think that tae's reasons for eliminating choices were good but that (C) can be eliminated confidently.

I think that Khodi's identification of lines 46-end is good, although as you can see my own approach would have been a little broader application of VIEWSTAMPS, less focused on specific lines.

[Seanjohn399]

Could you explain further why A is wrong? Is it correct to eliminate A because it has the last few years as well, and the author demonstrates he would prefer long term matches between temperature?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Seanjohn,

That's exactly right! A match for a few years between a model's predictions and the earth's actual temperatures likely wouldn't mean much to our author. You can see this fairly clearly in the second and third paragraphs. In the second paragraph, you can see it at the end, where the author discusses how models have gotten better by taking new data into account. At the end of the second paragraph, the author approvingly refers to the fact that "these scientists have calculated theoretical temperatures for recent decades that are consistent with observed temperatures." This helps show that the author wants to see temperature correspondence on a decades-long scale (versus just for a few years). Once again in paragraph 3, the author refers to the need to look at "temperature over the long term" rather than just fluctuations "from one year to the next." Given that the author is willing to view changes from one year to the next as just an insignificant blip, the author is unlikely to be convinced by a model that merely matches temperature outcomes for a few years.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy