[66's]异题 Argument47

zoeyczUID: 2621425

TOPIC: ARGUMENT47 - Scientists studyinghistorical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century,Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical recordssurvive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention adimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcaniceruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a largedust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable ofblocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A largemeteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash oflight, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Somesurviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boomthat would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling wasprobably caused by a volcanic eruption.
WORDS: 425
TIME: 01:03:33
DATE: 2010-2-24 17:01:13

Author tries to prove that cooling wascaused by a volcanic eruption in this article. However, the evidences andreasoning he provides here are weak and insufficient, which, therefore, makesthe conclusion indefensible for further inspection.

First of all, he mentions that historicalrecords extant now are 'few', which makes me doubt whether these data aresufficient enough for any further induction. Since it is long time frommid-sixth century, it would be hard to ensure the original intention for thesedata. It may just serve as a kind of literature, which has nothing to do withwhat has actually happened. On the other hand, let alone the reliance ofrecords, it says only 'some' of them states the phenomenon and never mentionthe others. What if the others are just telling the opposite situation? Withoutruling out such possibilities, it will be unjustified to draw any conclusion.

Secondly, author states withoutsubstantiating that there's a causal relationship between a dimming of the sunand extremely cold temperatures. Though usually it would be warmer in daytimeand colder in night, that how bright the sun is is not the only determiningfactor of temperature. Otherwise how can you explain temperature differencebetween summer and winter? Neglecting the other aspects and jumping to theconclusion that cooling was brought about by a dimming of sun would beunconvinced for me.

Next, author takes it for granted that adimming of sun is engendered by a large dust cloud throughout Earth'satmosphere. Nevertheless, chances are that the heating process of sun was justnot so active for some reason by the time or there was a giant planet which wasjust between the orbit between sun and earth. Whichever the situation, withoutexcluding these alternatives, it would be too hasty to confirm author'shypothesis.

Last but not the least, even if all abovewere logical that the cooling is caused by either a huge volcanic eruption or alarge meteorite colliding with Earth, to assume the root cause is the formerone based on the mere fact that there's no records of flash but boom alone isquestionable. For example, the giant colliding meteorite dropped in Africa, sopeople in Asia and Europe only hear the boom without seeing the flash. Isn't itanother plausible interpretation contribute to the opposite conclusion?

In all, author fails to provide reliableproofs and strong enough induction to evolve his assumption persuasive. Thereare too many facts overlooked in his argument and too many generations made toohasty, which makes it untenable to any close scrutiny.

soilinkinUID: 2163892

这篇依然高水准...长句都很棒...
对你的文章总是没什么可改的啊...