[a习作temp] argument47【15日急速冲刺小组】第10次作业 [复制链接]

wujingyang
UID: 2300536

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 156
注册时间: 2007-2-4
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-7 21:18:27 |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.

outline
*The arguer commit a fallacy of false dilemma.
*The arguer fails to covince us that no large meteorite collision ever occured in the mid-sixth century
*The assumption that a volanic eruption caused the cooling in the mid-sixth century is still open to doubt due to insufficient evidence.

In this analysisi ,the arguer attempts to prove than the cooling wa probably caused by a volcanic eruption.To substantiate this claim. the major assumption underlying this argument is that some accounts found both in Asia and Europr mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures.Another piece of evidence presented is that there was no flash of light caused by the meteorite collision in the records founded.In addtion. the arguer ,take it for granted that a loud boom mentioned in the asian historical records of the time was the main reason to support what the arger claim.However.several important concerns which the arguer fails to address seriouly undermine the argument.

First,unless the sufficience in size and represented of the study's sample provided,with the insighting the reason cited in the argument,however we find no sign of such procedure for random sampling. and have good reason to suspicous if the sample which just from asian and europe records is representive enough to reflect the general situation of the allover the world in mid-sixth century as a whole.There fore. any coclusion reached to explain the enphomoneon must base on more through deeper survey to gather sufficient data to narrow down and locate the causes of the problem.

Secondly,the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the valcanic eruption and the cooling in midsixth century,just owing to that the later one happened after the former one,it is unjustify to draw this conclusion.Further there is no direct record mention that volcanic eruption was the really cause of the cooling.we need more detailed reasons.Actually, the arguer commited a fallacy of hasty generalization,the asian and europe records cannot represented the total situation of the world.we can hardly be convinced by this incompletely evidence.

Thirdly,the arguer fails to eliminate these and other possible explaination why the cooling happened.This scenario is that there might be a meteorite collosion ever even there was not any related record about the sudden bright flash of light.On the other hand, there is no direct support to reason that the a loud boom mentioned in tht asian record could be the powerful evidence,without taking into account other possibilities such as the sudden change weather and climate of the whole world,even the universal.Nor does the mere fact that the a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption lend significant support to the assumption.

In closing. the conclusion reached in argument lacks credibility and persuasive result from vague and doubt evidences.To solidify the argument, the author need to provide more concrete reasons and rule out all the above-mentioned possibities that might weaken the argument.