Meteorologists say that when they design accurate mathematical models that can describe all the complex details of the atmosphere, they can make completely accurate weather forecasts. This is actually a plausible boast that can never be proven wrong. As long as there is an error in any weather forecast, you can find inaccuracies in the relevant mathematical models. Therefore, this declaration of meteorologists is meaningless. Which of the following, if true, would best serve as a basis for refuting the above view (i. e. the meteorologist's claim is meaningless). ['Some unusual data structures can be used as the basis for accurate weather forecasts, even if the exact mechanism is unknown.', 'As the accuracy of mathematical models is getting higher and higher, the accuracy of weather forecasts is also getting higher and higher.', 'Mathematical models of the meteorological consequences of catastrophic events like volcanic eruptions are beginning to be constructed.', 'Modern weather forecasts have reached 85% accuracy.']