- 最后登录
- 2007-8-14
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 338
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2007-7-6
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 225
- UID
- 2359460
![Rank: 2](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level2.gif)
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 338
- 注册时间
- 2007-7-6
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
In this argument, the arguer contends that it is volcanic eruption that leads to the dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in the mid-sixth century. To support his contention, the arguer tries to eliminate the second possible reason for that matter---a large meteorite colliding with earth. He cites that no flash of light was recorded into history and there was a loud boom which is caused by a volcanic eruption as the arguer assumes. However, as it stands, I find the argument flaws in some respects.
To begin with, the arguer assumes that the cause of the cooling is either a volcanic eruption or a meteorite collision. However, the arguer fails to provide evidence for this matter. lacking such evidence, perhaps it is not an alternative problem, in another word, there might be other factors contributes to the cooling.
Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that no large meteorite collision ever occurred in the mid-sixth century. To support his views, the arguer cites that since the meteorite would probably cause a sudden flash of light, however, there are no historical records on that of that time mention such a flash. However, the arguer ignores that the possibility that people did not notice the flash of light for they might think it is normal. Even people at that time found a flash of light, it is entirely possible that they failed to record into history. Without eliminating such possibility, the assumption that the cooling was not caused by the meteorite collision remains unconvincing.
Thirdly, even assuming the cooling was not caused by meteorite collision, however, the arguer provides little evidence that it was due to volcanic eruption. For that matter, the arguer cites that a loud boom which would be caused by volcanic eruption is mentioned by surviving Asian historical record of the time, while the arguer provides no evidence that the boom was caused by the volcanic eruption. Perhaps there are other factors contribute to the boom. To illustrate, the earthquake and some other nature disasters may be the exact reasons.
In sum, what the arguer tries to convince us remains unfounded. To better bolster his views, the arguer should eliminate other nature reasons that might cause the cooling and focus on the two reasons: volcanic eruption and meteorite collision. Also, we need to be convinced that in fact, there are no flash of light in the mid-sixth century. moreover, the arguer should convince us that the loud boom is exactly caused by volcanic eruption. |
|