[未归类] argument47（hand-in-hand 望天） [复制链接]

望天
UID：2106455

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1957
注册时间: 2005-6-4
精华: 0
帖子: 11

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-1-7 21:30:56 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

argument47 作业(hand-in-hand)

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.
1：没有明确比较对象
2：光靠局部发生的并不能说明这个问题----以偏概全！那些历史记录是否可靠。
4：太阳变暗，原因可能很多，不只是火山说不好太阳自己还发生了什么变化呢！呵呵
3：暴响就是火上爆发阿？？炸弹呢？？

  in this argument,the author recommends that the volcanic eruption is the key cause which have made earth's weather  cooler in the mid-sixth century,in succession,to support his view, the survival records about a dimming of the sun were  cited in Asia and Europe.in the process of argueing,there are many flaws that weaken his viewpoint,such as concluding  the final ultimateness just according to some fractional things,and even the certainty about his concerned materials.

  to begin with, it might be true,just as the arguer claims,the tempreture was surely cooler in the mid-sixth century,  but there is no trace here that shows the tempreture is lower thanbefore or afterward,are we to able to say that our present weather become warmer without any compared object according to the author's thinking?, it is blind to say like  that.in the following,the author introduce the records about a dimming of sun in Aria and Europe.here,the assurence about  which was utterly mentioned,as we all know,in some sense, some wrote-down-documentation's real degree can not be fully  believed!for example,ever and again, information or report about UFO was full of our reality,but most of us have not witnessed,naturually,which was doubted about that by the majority.certaily,not all things should be beholded by us until we believe it! most important is that the conclusion merely based on survival records in the Asia and European which is only a small part of the world,is someting the matter!apparently,it is not convincible to conclude the sayings like that the tempreture of earth suddenly became sinificantly  cooler according to  records found in asia and Europe whether whose facticity  was also assured or not.

  Next,the author made a analysis about the problem about dimming sun.on the sumption that the volcanic did erupt and the  collision between a large meterite and earth happened,if so ,both of which may not be the significant reasons making the cooler  result,and even the author have not refered to the certainty about which must have happened.all those have not  strenghten the proposition.as we know,we can not deny that some other factor can also make the sun dim such as sandstorm or some problem happened to the sun itself!


  further more,the arguer recite that flash of light probably happen with a large meteorite visiting earth,whose record was not extant,in other words,the collision might not happened,in the following, just like the presenter saying: "a loud boom that would be consistent with volcanic eruption",as we all know,a loud boom would likely to  happen when the bomb blow.

  in sum ,the argument is not persuasive as it stands,to take more convincing,the author should supply reliable material  to support his standpoint.the detailed proof shoul be offered,besides,other factor may also be refered,such as some kind of human being behaviour,or even change of nature itself and so on.

[ 本帖最后由望天于 2006-1-7 21:37 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

happypearl
UID：206945

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1925
注册时间: 2005-4-24
精华: 5
帖子: 6

沙发

发表于 2006-1-7 23:36:20 |只看该作者

in this argument,the author recommends that the volcanic eruption is the key cause which have(has) made earth's weather  cooler in the mid-sixth century,in succession,to support his view, the survival records about a dimming of the sun were  cited in Asia and Europe(a dimming of the sun in Asia and Europe were cited).in the process of argueing,there are many flaws that weaken his viewpoint,such as concluding  the final ultimateness just according to some fractional things,and even the certainty about his concerned materials.

  to begin with, it might be true,just as the arguer claims,the tempreture was surely cooler in the mid-sixth century,  but there is no trace here that shows the tempreture is lower thanbefore or afterward,are we to able to say that our present weather become warmer without any compared object according to the author's thinking?, it is blind to say like  that.in the following,the author introduce the records about a dimming of sun in Aria and Europe.here,the assurence about  which was utterly mentioned,as we all know,in some sense, some wrote-down-documentation's real degree can not be fully  believed!for example,ever and again, information or report about UFO was full of our reality,but most of us have not witnessed,naturually,which was doubted about that by the majority.(这个例子有点像在写issue)certaily,not all things should be beholded by us until we believe it! most important is that the conclusion merely based on survival records in the Asia and European which is only a small part of the world,is someting the matter!apparently,it is not convincible to conclude the sayings like that the tempreture of earth suddenly became sinificantly  cooler according to  records found in asia and Europe whether whose facticity  was also assured or not.逻辑错误找得不是很准确
  Next,the author made a analysis about(analyzed) the problem about（of） dimming sun.on the sumption(assumption) that the volcanic did erupt and the  collision between a large meterite and earth happened,if so ,both of which may not be the significant reasons making the cooler  result,and even the author have not refered to the certainty about which must have happened.all those have not  strenghten the proposition.as we know,we can not deny that some other factor can also make the sun dim such as sandstorm or some problem happened to the sun itself!


  further more,the arguer recite that flash of light probably happen with a large meteorite visiting earth,whose record was not extant,in other words,the collision might not happened,in the following, just like the presenter saying: "a loud boom that would be consistent with volcanic eruption",as we all know,a loud boom would likely to  happen when the bomb blow. 反驳得不够透彻

  in sum ,the argument is not persuasive as it stands,to take more convincing,the author should supply reliable material  to support his standpoint.the detailed proof shoul be offered,besides,other factor may also be refered,such as some kind of human being behaviour,or even change of nature itself and so on.

请注意句首字母大写，要养成习惯
你的语言表达还不够地道，建议多看北美范文

使用道具举报

望天
UID：2106455

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1957
注册时间: 2005-6-4
精华: 0
帖子: 11

板凳

发表于 2006-1-8 16:27:18 |只看该作者

好的！
我下去好好看看！
3Q！

使用道具举报

dzg2006
UID：2154669

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 989
注册时间: 2005-11-4
精华: 0
帖子: 0

地板

发表于 2006-1-8 18:28:34 |只看该作者

in this argument, the author recommends that the volcanic eruption is the key cause which have (has) made earth's weather  cooler in the mid-sixth century. in succession,to support his view, the survival records about a dimming of the sun were  cited in Asia and Europe.in the process of argueing （arguing）, there are many flaws that weaken his viewpoint,such as concluding  the final ultimateness just according to some fractional things and even the certainty about his concerned materials. (格式：标点符号后空一格)

  to begin with, it might be true, just as the arguer claims, the tempreture(temperature) was surely cooler in the mid-sixth century, but there is no trace here that shows the tempreture (temperature) is lower than before or afterward, are we to able to say that our present weather become warmer without any compared object according to the author's thinking?, it is blind to say like  that. （这是结果不是作者的论据或论证的理由。） in the following,the author introduce the records about a dimming of sun in Aria and Europe. here,the assurence about  which was utterly mentioned,as we all know,in some sense, some wrote-down-documentation's real degree can not be fully  believed! for example, ever and again, information or report about UFO was full of our reality, but most of us have not witnessed, naturually, which was doubted about that by the majority. certaily, not all things should be beholded by us until we believe it! most important is that the conclusion merely based on survival records in the Asia and European which is only a small part of the world,is someting the matter! apparently,it is not convincible to conclude the sayings like that the tempreture of earth suddenly became sinificantly  cooler according to  records found in asia and Europe whether whose facticity  was also assured or not. (注意单词的拼写)
  Next,the author made a analysis about the problem about dimming sun. Based on the assumption that the volcanic did erupt and the collision between a large meterite and earth happened. if so ,both of which may not be the significant reasons making the cooler  result,and even the author have not refered to the certainty about which must have happened.all those have not  strenghten the proposition.as we know,we can not deny that some other factor can also make the sun dim such as sandstorm or some problem happened to the sun itself! (论证不详。)


  further more,the arguer recite that flash of light probably happen with a large meteorite visiting earth,whose record was not extant,in other words,the collision might not happened,in the following, just like the presenter saying: "a loud boom that would be consistent with volcanic eruption",as we all know,a loud boom would likely to  happen when the bomb blow.

  in sum ,the argument is not persuasive as it stands,to take more convincing,the author should supply reliable material  to support his standpoint.the detailed proof shoul be offered,besides,other factor may also be refered,such as some kind of human being behaviour,or even change of nature itself and so on.
望天兄，可以先把文章放到word检查一下语法和拼写。

[ 本帖最后由 dzg2006 于 2006-1-8 18:30 编辑 ]

使用道具举报