[a习作temp] Argument47 <LOVEAW>小组第7次作业 [复制链接]

小猫儿
UID：2297873

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 665
注册时间: 2007-1-29
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-2-21 20:52:52 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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、太阳发热不是地表温度的主要来源，温度下降的原来不一定是因为太阳的变暗
2、即使因为太阳变暗，证明火山爆发引起太阳变暗的证据不足，可能陨星撞击的证据未被记录
3、不应只考虑欧洲和亚洲

Given the discover that the temperature on the earth in the mid-sixth century showed a sharp decline, the arguer cites a series of evidences that accounts from Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures, and that no historical records of the time mention a flash created by a large meteorite colliding with Earth while there is a loud boom in Asian historical records of the time created by a huge volcanic eruption, to draw to the conclusion that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. A close scrutiny reveals the argument unconvincing.

In the first place, the argument bases itself on the assumption that the heat from the sun is the major cause of the temperature of the earth, while it is not the case. The temperature of the surface of the earth is mainly originated from the heat of the earth’s core. In the argument there is no information about whether the temperature referred to is of the surface of the earth or it is of the high altitude. Without clarifying the detailed data about the temperature records, it is too rushed to assume that the sun is the major cause of the temperature of the earth. Thus, the cooling of the earth in the mid-sixth century may not result from the dimming of the sun.

Even if the cooling of the earth results from the dimming of the sun, it can not be concluded that the cooling is caused by a volcanic eruption. The loud boom only once appearing in the historical records can not prove a volcanic eruption. It is fairly possible that the boom is caused by an avalanche. Or it is caused by an earthquake or a tsunami. Without ruling out these situations, the mere boom in the historical records only once can not be cognized as a volcanic eruption. Moreover, the fact that there are no records for a flash created by a large meteorite collision can not be considered as that no such collisions ever happened at that time. It is fairly possible that such flashes frightened the people and were avoided mentioning by the people, which makes the phenomenon unknown to us. Or it is also possible that there were records once, however, they were lost later and thus we can not get the evidence. Without taking these situations into consideration, the argument is inconsiderate at the best.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to take the other areas besides Asia and Europe. Maybe there were no flashes created by large meteorite collisions in Asia and Europe, while there were in other continents. It is also possible that the cooling of Asia and Europe has a different cause compared with the other continents. It is known that there are mostly lands in Asia and Europe, while Australia is surrounded by the seas. Different conditions of these continents may contribute to different causes for the cooling.

To sum up, the arguer is too rushed to draw to the conclusion that the cooling of the earth in the mid-six century at the best. To better bolster the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information about the detailed data for the temperature, the minute records of the phenomenon indicating the cause of the cooling, as well as the all-sided records throughout the world.

[ 本帖最后由小猫儿于 2007-2-21 21:03 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

welcomebs
UID：2235250

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1101
注册时间: 2006-7-27
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2007-2-23 01:28:35 |只看该作者

Given the discover(discovery) that the temperature on the earth in the mid-sixth century showed a sharp decline, the arguer cites a series of evidences that accounts from Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures, and that no historical records of the time mention a flash created by a large meteorite colliding with Earth while there is a loud boom in Asian historical records of the time created by a huge volcanic eruption, to draw to the conclusion that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. A close scrutiny reveals the argument unconvincing.

In the first place, the argument bases itself on the assumption that the heat from the sun is the major cause of the temperature of the earth, while it is not the case. The temperature of the surface of the earth is mainly originated from the heat of the earth’s core. In the argument there is no information about whether the temperature referred to is of the surface of the earth or it is of the high altitude. 应该继续说出如果是高纬度的情况怎么样,地表的情况是怎么样.外国人的都比较懒,你得说清楚^_^Without clarifying the detailed data about the temperature records, it is too rushed to assume that the sun is the major cause of the temperature of the earth. Thus, the cooling of the earth in the mid-sixth century may not result from the dimming of the sun.

Even if the cooling of the earth results from the dimming of the sun, it can not be concluded that the cooling is caused by a volcanic eruption. The loud boom only once appearing in the historical records can not prove a volcanic eruption. It is fairly possible that the boom is caused by an avalanche. Or it is caused by an earthquake or a tsunami. Without ruling out these situations, the mere boom in the historical records only once can not be cognized as a volcanic eruption. Moreover, the fact that there are no records for a flash created by a large meteorite collision can not be considered as that no such collisions ever happened at that time. It is fairly possible that such flashes frightened the people and were avoided mentioning by the people, which makes the phenomenon unknown to us. Or it is also possible that there were records once, however, they were lost later and thus we can not get the evidence. 让批驳更锐利，可以说作者前后矛盾，作者已经说了historical records survive from that time,Without taking these situations into consideration, the argument is inconsiderate at the best.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to take the other areas besides Asia and Europe. Maybe there were no flashes created by large meteorite collisions in Asia and Europe, while there were in other continents. It is also possible that the cooling of Asia and Europe has a different cause compared with the other continents. It is known that there are mostly lands in Asia and Europe, while Australia is surrounded by the seas.(如果以这个为例子的话，应该继续分析一下这些地形因素是怎么影响天气的。) Different conditions of these continents may contribute to different causes for the cooling.

To sum up, the arguer is too rushed to draw to the conclusion that the cooling of the earth in the mid-six century at the best. To better bolster the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information about the detailed data for the temperature, the minute records of the phenomenon indicating the cause of the cooling, as well as the all-sided records throughout the world.

语言没问题，还是论证应该更深入一些

静静的生活...