TOPIC：ARGUMENT 47 - Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical records survive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A large meteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.
In this argument, the author concludes that the cooling of the Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite collision with Earth. To bolster this conclusion the author points out that no extant historical records of the time mention a bright flash so that the cooling is not caused by a meteorite collision. And the author also quotes that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom to prove that there is a volcanic eruption at that time. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the argument.
To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of false dilemma. He unfairly assumes that there are only two causes-a large meteorite collision or a volcanic eruption that resulted in the cooling of the Earth. However, the author overlooks other explanations for the temperature decline, for instance, the activity of the sunspot was slow down in that era, the earth received less energy from the sun and accordingly its temperature declined. Without considering and ruling out this and other explanations, the author cannot persuade me that it is merely the volcanic eruptions that lead to the global cooling.
Second, the author's assertion relying on the fact that no extant historical records of the time mention there was a sudden bright flash of light is unwarranted. No extant historical records of such a flash is not a good indication of no meteorite colliding. It is entirely possible that in the geological scale which could observe the bright flash light there are no residents and therefore no records. For that matter, perhaps there are documents which accurately describe the accident of bight flash really existing in the history, but with the fleeting time they are destroyed for unknown reasons. Unless the author could rule out these possibilities, which are not mentioned in the argument, I cannot accept the author's conclusion.
Third, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the surviving Asian records that mention a loud boom and the happening of a volcanic eruption. The author neglects other possible factors that can also account for the loud boom. For example, there is an earthquake or landslide happened in that area causing a loud boom. Even assuming that there is a volcanic eruption, it begs the question: can only one volcanic eruption produce sufficient quantity of dust cloud to prevent the majority of sunlight passing through the earth atmosphere?
To sum up, the argument is fraught with dubious assumptions. To strengthen it, the author should provide clear evidence that the loud boom in the historical document is merely attributable to a volcanic eruption, and that no meteorite collision happened at that time.作者: jingjingtous 时间: 2006-1-13 20:23:29
In this argument, the author concludes that the cooling of the Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite collision with Earth. To bolster this conclusion the author points out that no extant historical records of the time mention a bright flash so that the cooling is not caused by a meteorite collision. And the author also quotes that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom to prove that there is a volcanic eruption at that time. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the argument.很眼熟啊 智恩
To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of false dilemma. He unfairly assumes that there are only two causes-a large meteorite collision or a volcanic eruption that resulted in the cooling of the Earth. However, the author overlooks other explanations for the temperature decline, for instance, the activity of the sunspot was slow down in that era, the earth received less energy from the sun and accordingly its temperature declined. Without considering and ruling out this and other explanations, the author cannot persuade me us that it is merely the volcanic eruptions that lead to the global cooling. 好像这不叫false dilemma
Second, the author's assertion relying on the fact that no extant historical records of the time mention there was a sudden bright flash of light is unwarranted. No extant historical records of such a flash is not a good indication of no meteorite colliding. It is entirely possible that in the geological scale which could observe the bright flash light there are no residents and therefore no records. For that matter, perhaps there are documents which accurately describe the accident of bight flash really existing in the history, but with the fleeting time they are destroyed for unknown reasons. Unless the author could rule out these possibilities, which are not mentioned in the argument, I cannot accept the author's conclusion.
Third, the author fails 时态要一致to establish a causal relationship between the surviving Asian records that mention a loud boom and the happening of a volcanic eruption. The author neglects other possible factors that can also account for the loud boom. For example, there is an earthquake or landslide happened in that area causing a loud boom. Even assuming that there is a volcanic eruption, it begs the question: can only one volcanic eruption produce sufficient quantity of dust cloud to prevent the majority of sunlight passing through the earth atmosphere? only one 这说法不对
To sum up, the argument is fraught with dubious assumptions. To strengthen it, the author should provide clear evidence that the loud boom in the historical document is merely attributable to a volcanic eruption, and that no meteorite collision happened at that time. 还漏了概述一个：其他可能的解释 呵呵
写得不错作者: jingjingtous 时间: 2006-1-14 23:04:21
和dganggang讨论一下：
persuade me 我觉得可以呀，为什么一定要用us
can only one 的说法不对，为什么呢？
还有false dilemma 的错误不是驳斥作者只认为有两种可能吗？
其它的可能性我在论证false dilemma的时候已经说了呀
因为太阳黑子的活动减少地球从太阳那里接受很少的能量导致全球变冷。
还有fails的时态要一致是什么意思，我用的就是一般现在时呀？