- Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:00 pm
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.