The Greenhouse Effect

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak: last few years25% picked this

   a strong correspondence between the model's calculated average global temperatures in the last few years and data

   This answer is very close to what we want. But since the question stem is asking, "how would we judge the success of a model that's supposed to account for the last 100 years", it would be weird for the author to say, "As long as the model gets the last 3 or 4 years right, I trust it'll be successful when it comes to the other 97 years". This answer is made more tempting by the fact that the author's problem with the solar energy model is its failure to account for the recent rise of temperatures (which kind of sounds like the last few years of rising temperatures). But it goes against common sense to think that all the author cares about is the last few years, when it comes to accurately modeling the last 100 years.

   25%
2. B

   Out of Scope: simple framework2% picked this

   that the model predicts an increase in the earth's temperature on the basis of a

   The author never stresses that a correct model must have a simple elegance. He's just stressing that it needs to accurately match the observed data.

   2%
3. C

   Wrong Emphasis6% picked this

   the extent to which the model has been revised in light

   In the second paragraph, the author would probably say that the greenhouse model was improved by being revised to account for sulfates, but he doesn't seem to be evaluating whether a model is legit or not based on how much it's been revised. He doesn't reject solar energy model because it's never been revised (or been revised too much). He rejects it because the model can't account for the entirety of the observed data points.

   6%
4. D

   Out of Scope: generally acknowledged5% picked this

   a close fit between the warming mechanisms postulated by the theory and those that are generally acknowledged to be

   The author is never insisting that a successful model only postulate something that closely fits our general preexisting expectations. It seems like this author would be open to a model that has a surprising warming mechanism, as long as the model was able to successfully predict the observed measurements.

   5%
5. E

   Correct62% picked this

   a long-term match between the model's estimated changes in the earth's temperature and data indicating the actual

   Why this is right

   Just like (A), this gives us what we were looking for: the predictions from the model match the observed temperatures. What makes this better is that it says the author would like to see a long-term match (vs. just the last few years). Since this model is supposed to explain the last 100 years, it makes more sense to want the model to match all 100 years, not just the last few. Suppose that the unusually high temperatures had occurred in the 1960s, rather than in the last decade. The author would be just as troubled by a model that failed to account for that tall spike in temps in the 60s as he is by a model that fails to account for the tall spike in temps in recent years.

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   62%