Argument47 和Argument51 Ares战队第7次作业

ketchupUID: 2182553

Argument47

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.

研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。

1.        不一定就只有火山和彗星这2种原因
2.        作者没有足够的信息表明彗星撞击是不可能的：可能flash没有被记载或观察到
3.        作者没有提供足够的信息说明火山爆发能够导致气候变冷，而且太阳也不是地球热量的唯一来源
4.        巨大隆隆声也不能证明火山喷发，可能是其他声响。如地震
5.        其他因素：作者使用亚洲和欧洲的调查来表述全球的气候是片面的；

In this argument the author concludes that the cooling on earth in the mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To support his conclusion, he provides that either a volcanic eruption or a meteorite colliding with earth can create the cold temperature. Since there is no possible meteorite colliding as the author mentioned, it should be the volcanic eruption that caused the cooling. However, the argument is not persuasive as it stands after careful examinations.

First of all, this argument commits a fallacy, which claims that only huge volcanic eruptions and large meteorite colliding can be the reason of the extremely cold temperatures on earth in the mid-sixth century. However, it is highly possible that other factors can also cause the problem, such as the melting of the ice in North or South Pole, and so on. Therefore the author cannot rashly conclude that only these two factors are the key point of the cooling.

Secondly, there is not enough evidence show that it was not the meteorite colliding created the cooling problem. The author presents that there was no bright flash records, so that the meteorite colliding didn't cause the cooling. However, as the author mentioned, few historical records can survive from that time, the records of flash by people at that time may be destroyed or lost. Even if no one had recorded the bright flashes, this can hardly prove that there were no flash and no meteorite colliding once existed, for people may ignored it. Therefore, the author of this argument cannot conclude confidently that it was not the meteorite colliding caused the cold temperature.

Moreover, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the volcanic eruption and the cold temperature.  How can he definitely claim that the volcanic eruption can create the cooling without any evidences? Besides, the sun is not only the heat supply to the earth. Less sunshine can hardly be too harmful to cause the extremely cold temperature, because the earth itself can also produce heat.

At last, the accounts only from Asia and Europe are not sound to prove the whole world. The records in these areas cannot delegate the whole situation in the world. In other places, the situations may be different and some related phenomenon happened and other elements caused this outcome, which the scientists and author may neglect.

To sum up, this argument is not as convincing as it presents. To make it perfect, the author has to provide the direct relationship between the volcanic eruption and the cooling, and the evidences can perfectly prove that only volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding can create the cold temperature.

ketchupUID: 2182553

The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

1.没有提供study的详细信息，两组患者数目不明，不具有代表性，研究不可靠。
2.可能不是因为抗生素，而是其他原因促进了康复速度，比如医师的治疗手段不同，又或者是糖丸影响了治疗效果，耽误了康复进程。
3.其他因素：服用抗生素会不会有不良反映没有说明，有的病人也许不适合抗生素用药
4．没有证据说明是二次感染妨碍了患者的恢复，其间没有直接联系。

The author suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his claim, the author provides a study of two groups of patients treated by two doctors in different ways that one group took antibiotics during the treatment while the other group took the sugar pills.  The result of the study seems proves the author's claim, however, after careful examination, this argument has many fallacies.

First of all, there is not enough details about the study which makes it unreliable. The author doesn't tell the number of the two groups of patient, their age, their body conditions, and so forth. All these details are needed to prove that they are the right subjects of the study purpose. If there are only few patients are involved in this study, they can hardly present all other patients. Therefore the study cannot be reliable and the author's suggestion sounds not persuasive.

In addition, it may not merely be the antibiotics that help patients healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is highly possible that other factors caused this results of these two groups of patients, such as the different ways of treatment of these two different doctors, the sugar pills negative effect, and so on. Therefore the author cannot conclude confidently that antibiotics are helpful for patients' healing.

Furthermore, there is no assurance that consuming a certain amount of antibiotics is good for everyone. We are not sure whether it is harmful for some people to take antibiotics from this argument, for the author provides no evidence on this issue. We cannot avoid the negative effect of antibiotics for patient, so it won't be wise to suggest those people after severe muscle strain to consume antibiotics as the author suggests.

At last, the suspicion from doctors that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has no support in this argument. The author fails to establish a correlation between these two aspects to support his conclusion that antibiotics are necessary during the treatment.

From above we can see this argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should present more details about the study, and prove that the antibiotics is surely helpful for patients' healing with no harm.

baihe1988UID: 2203505

传附件吧——加油！两个附件！^_^！