argument47 期待互拍

chengenhuiUID: 200271

Argument47  
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Merely based on unfounded assumptions and dubious evidences, the author draws a conclusion that the cooling in the mid-six century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this conclusion, the author points out that only two ways can cause the extreme cold temperature, one is a huge volcanic eruption, the other is a large meteorite colliding with earth. In addition, the author indicated that no history records of that time mentioned such a flash caused by the large meteorite collision. However, these alone neither constitute a logical argument in favor of the conclusion, nor provide compelling evidence making the argument sound. The author ignores such key issue, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, the argument suffers from several flaws.

In the first place, the author's recommendation rests on the unlikely assumption that the result has only two alternatives a large volcanic eruption and a large meteorite collision. However, no evidence in the argument is stated to support this assumption. In all likelihoods, the extreme cold temperature can engage one of many other reasons instead. It is possible that the earthquake and floods can also cause the cold temperature. Thus to some extent, the recommendation is unwarranted.

In the second place, the author cited the evidence that no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash caused by a large meteorite collision. However, no historical records mention the flash really mean that no such kind of a flash? Maybe the historical record which records the flash destroyed because of the war or natural disasters such as earthquake, floods. If the meteorite collides with the earth in the place of America today, people in the place of China of course could not see the flash, and there were no people who lived in the American at that time. Without ruling out such alternative explanations, the author can not convince me that the flash didn't happen really.

Last but no least, the author use the accounts founded both in Asia and Europe to indicate the temperature of the whole earth is unwarranted. The author failed to provide enough evidences to illustrate that a large volcanic eruption can cause the temperature of whole earth extremely cold. The author establish an assumption that the sun is the sole heat source of the earth, while no evidence is provided to prove the assumption.

To sum up, the argument seems be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. In order to make the argument more convincing, the author would have to take follow factors into consideration. First, the author should provide more information about the volcanic eruption. Second, the author must also provide the better evidence that it is this volcanic eruption that caused the extreme cold temperature. If the arguments includes the given factor guessed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-24 at 22:56 ]

d_messiahUID: 177468

Merely based on unfounded assumptions and dubious evidences, the author draws a conclusion that the cooling in the mid-six century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this conclusion, the author points out that only two ways can cause the extreme cold temperature, one is a huge volcanic eruption, the other is a large meteorite colliding with earth. In addition, the author indicated that no history records of that time mentioned such a flash caused by the large meteorite collision. However, these alone neither constitute a logical argument in favor of the conclusion, nor provide compelling evidence making the argument sound. The author ignores such key issue, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, the argument suffers from several flaws.

In the first place, the author's recommendation rests on the unlikely assumption that the result has only two alternatives a large volcanic eruption and a large meteorite collision中间加点东西，破折号或者冒号. However, no evidence in the argument is stated to support this assumption. In all likelihoods, the extreme cold temperature can engage one of many other reasons instead. It is possible that the earthquake and floods can also cause the cold temperature. Thus to some extent, the recommendation is unwarranted.

In the second place, the author cited the evidence that no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash caused by a large meteorite collision. However, do no historical records mention the flash really mean that no such kind of a flash? Maybe the historical record which records the flash destroyed because of the war or natural disasters such as earthquake, floods. If the meteorite collides with the earth in the place of America today, people in the place of China of course could not see the flash, and there were no people who lived in the American at that time我学理科的，不知道事实是否如此，不过就算如此，也加个常识说吧. Without ruling out such alternative explanations, the author can not convince me that the flash didn't happen really.

Last but not least, the author use the accounts founded both in Asia and Europe to indicate the temperature of the whole earth is unwarranted. The author failed to provide enough evidences to illustrate that a large volcanic eruption can cause the temperature of whole earth extremely cold. The author establish an assumption that the sun is the sole heat source of the earth, while no evidence is provided to prove the assumption.

To sum up, the argument seems be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. In order to make the argument more convincing, the author would have to take follow factors into consideration. First, the author should provide more information about the volcanic eruption. Second, the author must also provide the better evidence that it is this volcanic eruption that caused the extreme cold temperature. If the arguments includes the given factor guessed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate. 感觉在B3里面能再充实些就更好了