Self-study
Statistician: Support Changes in the Sun’s luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth. █████████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████ █████ ████████████████████ ███████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ██████
██████████████ █ █████████ ███ ████████████ █████████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ █████████
Structure: Counter-Argument
The statistician argues that the correlation between changes in the Sun's luminosity and average land temperatures on Earth reveals causation: the Sun's luminosity "essentially controls" Earth's land temperatures. The statistician notes that this isn't the "accepted opinion" among meteorologists.
The meteorologist rejects the statistician's argument. In support, she cites the opinion of "any professional meteorologist" that in a complicated system like the climate, no single variable controls any "significant aspect."
Analysis: Method of Reasoning
The meteorologist's argument rejects the statistician's argument apparently just on the basis that "any professional meteorologist" would disagree with the statistician's argument. You might think this is a weak response, given that the statistician is already aware of this: he has stated that his argument is contrary to "accepted opinion" among meteorologists. But for our purposes in this Method of Reasoning question, it's our job just to notice that the meteorologist uses this approach — she appeals to the broader opinion among meteorologists to support her rejection of the statistician's argument — and look for an answer choice that correctly describes this.
24.
The rejection by the meteorologist ██ ███ ████████████████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████████████
a
supporting a conclusion █████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ █ ████████ ██████████████
Correct. This is a tricky answer choice, but if we unpack how it works, we'll be able to refine our initial analysis of the meteorologist's response too. Remember that the meteorologist's conclusion is the rejection of the statistician's conclusion: i.e., her point is that the Sun's luminosity alone does not control land temperatures on Earth.
In our initial analysis, we said the meteorologist supports this view on the basis that professional meteorologists would disagree with the statistician. This is technically true, but she actually does a little bit more than just say that "professional meteorologists don't believe the Sun's luminosity controls Earth's land temperatures" (as the statistician already knows). Instead, she cites the opinion of professional meteorologists about complicated systems in general, not only about the climate. Professional meteorologists will tell you that in any system as complicated as that giving rise to the climate, no single variable controls any significant aspect. This is the "relevant generalization" the meteorologist uses to support her specific conclusion: the Sun's luminosity is not the controlling factor in Earth's land temperatures.
b
producing a single ██████████████ ████ ███████████ ████ █ ██████████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████
Incorrect. The meteorologist doesn't provide specific counterexamples, for instance, of where Earth's land temperature doesn't correlate with changes in the Sun's luminosity.
c
reanalyzing a correlation ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ █████
Incorrect. This might be tempting because the statistician and the meteorologist do disagree about how a correlation indicates cause-and-effect relationships. But if this answer choice were accurate, the meteorologist would be saying that the correlation between changes in the Sun's luminosity and Earth's land temperatures would somehow indicate the "multiple effects" of a single cause — i.e., the Sun's luminosity.
But the whole point of the meteorologist's argument is to reject the idea that the Sun's luminosity is the "single cause" of any significant phenomenon. Her argument, if anything, is supposed to suggest multiple causes for a single effect, not multiple effects from a single cause. So (C) isn't accurate.
d
rejecting a conclusion ███████ ██ ██ █ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ██████
Incorrect. The meteorologist never says anything about whether the statistician's claim can be experimentally tested.
e
pointing out that ███████████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████████ █████████
Incorrect. The meteorologist never accuses the statistician of neglecting evidence.