Argument47 寄托4人组 8-21

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

Argument47  第09篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分11秒     350 words
从2005年7月21日16时58分到2005年7月21日16时0分
------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------
In this argument, by an appealing step by step analysis, the speaker concluded that the cooling of Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. However, after a careful scrutiny, I find the reasoning suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the speaker only provides one possible cause of the sudden drop of temperature: a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere. It is quite possible that the cooling results from other reasons. For instance, the lower activities of the sun itself which would generate less amount of sunlight, might result in the cooling even when the atmosphere is clear enough.

Furthermore, even assuming that the cooling is as a result of a large dust cloud, the speaker commits a false dilemma by asserting that the dust is caused by either volcanic eruption or meteorite collision. The possibility that this dust cloud is generated by other forces cannot be neglected. For example, continental-scale sandstorms might probably send large amount of dust on earth surface into the atmosphere, and finally blocks sunlight.

Moreover, no extant historical records of a bright flash of light is far from enough to rule out the possibility that the dust cloud is result from meteoritic collision. The fact might be that records of such collision have not been found, or been destroyed or lost. In addition, it is also possible that the flash can only be seen at a curtain region where people cannot write. Thus, even they saw it, they cannot record it down to paper or other materials.

Last but not least, no substantial evidence implies that a loud boom in surviving Asian historical records of the time is caused by volcanic eruption. Other possibilities such as earthquake, thunder, explosion of bombs, etc. can also generate such a loud boom. As a result, it is too hasty to conclude that there is a casual relationship between the loud boom and the volcanic eruption.

In conclusion, the argument is vulnerable and unpersuasive according to the flaws and alternative possibilities listed above. Unless they all are ruled out, the speakers' conclusion is groundless.

[ Last edited by bridgewalker on 2005-8-21 at 22:33 ]

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

zhan!

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Argument47  第09篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分11秒     350 words
从2005年7月21日16时58分到2005年7月21日16时0分
------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------
In this argument, by an appealing step by step analysis, the speaker concluded[一般现在时] that the cooling of Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. However, after a careful scrutiny, I find the reasoning suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the speaker only provides one possible cause of the sudden drop of temperature: a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere. It is quite possible that the cooling results from other reasons. For instance, the lower activities of the sun itself which would generate less amount of sunlight[energy?], [去掉逗号，或在which前也加]might result in the cooling even when the atmosphere is clear enough.[good point]

Furthermore, even assuming that the cooling is as a result of a large dust cloud, the speaker commits a false dilemma by asserting that the dust is caused by either volcanic eruption or meteorite collision. The possibility that this dust cloud is generated by other forces cannot be neglected. For example, continental-scale sandstorms might probably send[sent] large amount of dust on earth surface into the atmosphere, and finally blocks sunlight.[我想到的是森林大火。]

Moreover, no extant historical records of a bright flash of light is far from enough to rule out the possibility that the dust cloud is result[ed] from meteoritic collision. The fact might be that records of such collision have not been found, or been destroyed or lost. In addition, it is also possible that the flash can only be seen at a curtain[certain] region where people cannot write[have no written language?]. Thus, even they saw it, they cannot record it down to[on?] paper or other materials.[更有逻辑一些：可能发生在没人的地方，比如南极；即使在有人的地方，可能是在黑夜没人发现；即使人们看到了，可能没有留下记录；即使留下记录了，可能遗失了。字数自然也就上去了]

Last but not least, no substantial evidence implies that a loud boom in surviving Asian historical records of the time is caused by volcanic eruption. Other possibilities such as earthquake, thunder, [explosion of bombs][这个算了吧。那时没炸弹吧], etc. can also generate such a loud boom. As a result, it is too hasty to conclude that there is a casual relationship between the loud boom and the volcanic eruption.

In conclusion, the argument is vulnerable and unpersuasive according to the flaws and alternative possibilities listed above. Unless they all are ruled out, the speakers' conclusion is groundless.[觉得字数少这里可以说To make it more convincing.,,,, 从正面再说一遍。]

[ Last edited by tangjihede on 2005-8-21 at 19:37 ]

MooNLighTcdUID: 2129792

其他不好说，全用它因法不能得高分

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

Originally posted by MooNLighTcd at 2005-8-21 19:48
其他不好说，全用它因法不能得高分

我也不想这样！但其他方法在这道题目上好像不好用。

兄台有何高见？指点一下。

meautoUID: 2116250

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 2%26filter%3Ddigest
从前面几面开始看
顺便改下你的标题,ARGUMENT47

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Originally posted by arhoo at 2005-3-17 01:56
几道argument的分析
argu47
作者的思路：dim和cold都在mid-sixth century被记载推出dim是cold原因。排除meteorite说明volcano是dim的原因，进而说明volcano是cold的原因
分析：
执意dim和cold因果：
1.没有说清dim和cold发生的具体时间关系。虽然都在mid-sixth，但也是很长一段时间。万一cold发生在dim之前呢？记载如此稀少以至于可能无法了解细节。补充：事实上有四件事情：dim in Euro, dim in Asia, cold in Euro, cold in Asia。更加混了。不过我觉得这样要说清楚很难。实力强的bull们可以试试。
2.即使是同时发生或者dim先行，也未必dim是cold之因。日、地距离的变化，洋流的变化（从《后天》得到启发），是不是都有可能造成气温降低。作者没有有效排除。
即使认同dim和cold之因果，质疑volcano和dim之因果。
3.meteorite真的被排除了吗？没有记录未必没有光。既然说few纪录存留下来，有可能没存留下的可能当时真地记录了。或者就压根儿没人想到要记录？就算真的没人看到闪光，也不能说明没有发出强闪光。可能撞击发生在白昼区，而且当地又无人烟……能驳得太多了
4.meteorite和volcano是either-or的关系吗？就算没有meteorite之collision而有volcano之eruption，volcano也未必是dim之因啊 （其实还可以驳隆隆声一定是火山发出的这一点……不过我一下子想不出隆隆声的alternative explanation）
5.就算Asia有volcano，就算那个volcano遮了asia的天。但没说清楚在east asia还是west asia。Euro又没记载volcano闹，万一还刚好在west euro。east asia 德volcano如何解释west euro的dim呢？

第一条太强了！赞！