argument47 这辈子第一篇，欢迎来砸，回帖必复

streamUID: 157695

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.

The author indicates that the suddenly cooling of the Earth’s weather patterns is caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this view the author cites that records in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures and no records had mentioned a sudden bright flash or light which is inevitable by a large meteorite collision but mentioned that a loud boom which maybe due to volcanic eruption. On the basis of these evidence, the author infers that it is not the meteorite collision but the huge volcanic eruption that cooled the Earth.This argument bears several logical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

The major problem with the argument is that it rests on an assumption that all the historical records and the accounts are accurate and comprehensive. Yet, the author offers insufficient evidence to ensure the accuracy. It is entirely possible that the bright flash happened in a place with no resident. Or perhaps it occurred at night and there happened to be nobody awake at that time. Without ruling out all these scenarios, the author fails to convince me about his assumption.

Another point worth considering is that the loud boon which is mentioned in the historical records of Asia may not be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Many events can contribute to a loud boon, including exploration, earthquake or even a thunder. Even if we admit that the boon was indeed caused by an eruption, how can we know that it is the right eruption which cause the sudden cooling of weather pattern? Obviously the author provides no evidence concerning this point.

Finally, the argument suffers from a “either-or” reasoning. Based on the fact that the sudden change of weather pattern is not caused by a meteorite collide, the author unfairly concludes that it must serve as a result of volcanic eruption. However, the author overlooks the possibility that it may the result from neither the former nor the latter, but other factors of the activity of black mole of the sun and so forth.

In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To better evaluate the argument I would need to know that the historical records and accounts is accurate and they are justifiably the reflection of the same event as it mentions in the argument. The author must also inform me the evidences supporting the facts that the volcanic eruption and the meteorite collision are the only alternatives which can account for the sudden change of the weather pattern.

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

The author indicates that the suddenly cooling of the Earth’s weather patterns is caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this view the author cites that records in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures and no records had mentioned a sudden bright flash or light which is inevitable by a large meteorite collision but mentioned that a loud boom which maybe due to volcanic eruption. On the basis of these evidence, the author infers that it is not the meteorite collision but the huge volcanic eruption that cooled the Earth.This argument bears several logical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.开头太长，浪费时间

The major problem with the argument is that it rests on an assumption that all the historical records and the accounts are accurate and comprehensive. Yet, the author offers insufficient evidence to ensure the accuracy. It is entirely possible that the bright flash happened in a place with no resident. Or perhaps it occurred at night and there happened to be nobody awake at that time. Without ruling out all these scenarios, the author fails to convince me about his assumption.

Another point worth considering is that the loud boon which is mentioned in the historical records of Asia may not be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Many events can contribute to a loud boon, including exploration, earthquake or even a thunder. Even if we admit that the boon was indeed caused by an eruption, how can we know that it is the right eruption which cause the sudden cooling of weather pattern? Obviously the author provides no evidence concerning this point.

Finally, the argument suffers from a “either-or” reasoning. Based on the fact that the sudden change of weather pattern is not caused by a meteorite collide, the author unfairly concludes that it must serve as a result of volcanic eruption. However, the author overlooks the possibility that it may the result from neither the former nor the latter, but other factors of the activity of black mole of the sun and so forth.

In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To better evaluate the argument I would need to know that the historical records and accounts is accurate and they are justifiably the reflection of the same event as it mentions in the argument. The author must also inform me the evidences supporting the facts that the volcanic eruption and the meteorite collision are the only alternatives which can account for the sudden change of the weather pattern.
总体感觉不错，主要错误都批到了，而且条理很好，在语言上多下工夫，写的再丰满写就好了

streamUID: 157695

请问：
1.如何把开头缩短又能包括所有论点论据
2.如何使语言丰满？什么叫丰满啊？
take a bow~~~~~

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

开头可以不写作者的论据，只写出论点即可

丰满就是写的深入一点，分析再透一点