BEHEPBURNargument47

晓天UID: 2755357

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 aloud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.

The claim that the cooling of the earth was the result of a volcanic eruption rather than the large meteorite’s collision due to the historical record sounds reasonable at first glance. After all, the speaker does offer some relevant evidence to support his assertion, and the assumptions underlying the argument are not without merits. However, several important concerns, which the speaker fails to address in his analysis, may seriously undermine the argument.
Firstly, the speaker unfairly assumes that the aloud boom came from a volcanic eruption, and the sudden transition of the earth temperature in the mid-sixth century is consistent with the eruption of volcano related to the boom. The evidence provided in the argument is not sufficient to validate the accurate relationship between the boom and the volcanic eruption. Perhaps the boom is the result of other factors which are nothing with volcanic eruption, such as the collision of meteorite, the earthquake or tsunami caused by the movement of continent. Even if the eruption lead to the boom, the order of they happened is not clear enough to illustrate everything. The possibility that the temperature decreased just at the point that boom took place has not been explained clearly. Even so, we cannot make the conclusion that the boom or the eruption brought about the cooling.
In addition, another weakness worth pointing out is that no record to certificate the meteorite stroked the earth means the inexistence of this feasibility. We may conclude that the data may be destroyed by the war or some disasters or the possibility that the phenomenon was not observed. Besides, no extant historical records of the time mention such the flash does not imply the presence of the strong flash as I mentioned above. Moreover, the accounts found in both Asia and Europe are problematic, since no representation of the study in the two continents stands for the whole earth. Perhaps, African has the accretion of the temperature in the mid-sixth century.
Finally, the speaker fails to take into account other possibilities which can lead to the decrease of the temperature except for the volcanic eruption and the meteorite’s collision. Before the speaker provides sufficient to rule out all the other possibilities that might cased the sudden change of the temperature, he cannot convince us to accept the conclusion of the argument.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker has to demonstrate that the volcanic eruption is the only reason leading to the changing of the temperature by getting rid of other elements. To solidify the argument, the arguer should provide more evidence about the record of the boom and the accounts about the whole regions all over the earth to make clear the relationship the boom and the eruption. In a word, no valid information strengths the argument, the conclusion is so vague and unwarranted.