Argument47 dganggang (kito) 超时了1min

dganggangUID: 2125101

47Scientists 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.

提纲：
理由不足，缺乏前提
事实根据不足，论断仓促
逻辑错误

The arguer tries to explain the main cause that made the cooling period of the earth in the mid-sixth century. A huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth are considered as the possible causes that blocked enough sunlight to lower the temperatures. For the existence of certain Asian historical records of the time, while no relevant proof could support the meteorite colliding, the arguer concludes that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption.

The logic of the inference in the argument is well-presented but it is not well-reasoned for some extinguished fallacies.

On the one hand, the arguer makes a mistake in list the possibilities that can cause the cooling in the sixth century. The arguer neither gives us two explanations without any necessary reasons, what's more, nor does he mention what makes the other potential possibilities groundless. Thus, his rough limit of the causes is totally unconvincing because the scale for the choices should be more extensive according to the factual situation, which the arguer also notes, "few historical records survive from that time".

On the other hand, the negation of the meteorite collision cause is based on a illogic judgment. The only reason that pumps the arguer to get rid of the possibility to choose meteorite collision is due to "no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash." Although the flash is regarded as a reasonable phenomenon of the collision, the lack of such flash can not prove that a large meteorite never happened at that time. Furthermore, the fact that no extant historical records remains is quite sensible because of the saying "few historical records survives" and it is not absolutely far from drawing the conclusion that meteorite collision had nothing to do with the cooling period.

Finally, the given reason in supporting the volcanic eruption school is not substantial at all to make the final conclusion either. First, the arguer fails to present more details and specific contents of the "surviving Asian historical records" on their discovery and function that could lead to the point about "a loud boom". Similarly, the arguer does not tell us why "a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption". Second, assumably, the loud boom really existed and could cause the volcanic eruption, however, this reason has no necessary relationship with the statement that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. Thus, the arguer just gives us the possible causes that made the volcanic eruption but he still neglected the significant link that could put the causal relationship between the cooling and the volcanic eruption together.

In general, incomplete explanations, the lack of insufficient evidence as well as the weak logic inference of the final conclusion has made this argument not articulate. The arguer may have to collect more information and clarify the information with scientific methods before he makes the conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2006-1-14 17:18 编辑 ]

dganggangUID: 2125101

没人改啊
应该是哪位？搞不清了

智恩UID: 2160717

哦，马上就来改，不好意思

智恩UID: 2160717

The arguer tries to explain the main cause that made the cooling period of the earth in the mid-sixth century. A huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth are considered as the possible causes that blocked enough sunlight to lower the temperatures. For the existence of certain Asian historical records of the time, while no relevant proof could support the meteorite colliding, the arguer concludes that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption.

The logic of the inference in the argument is well-presented but it is not well-reasoned for some extinguished fallacies.（不明白为什么每次你这里都要单独来一段？？）

On the one hand, the arguer makes a mistake in list the possibilities that can cause the cooling in the sixth century. The arguer neither gives us two explanations without any necessary reasons, what's more, nor does he mention what makes the other potential possibilities groundless. Thus, his rough limit of the causes is totally unconvincing because the scale for the choices should be more extensive according to the factual situation, which the arguer also notes, "few historical records survive from that time".（这段感觉不是很具体）

On the other hand, the negation of the meteorite collision cause is based on a illogic judgment. The only reason that pumps the arguer to get rid of the possibility to choose meteorite collision is due to "no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash." Although the flash is regarded as a reasonable phenomenon of the collision, the lack of such flash can not prove that a large meteorite never happened at that time. Furthermore, the fact that no extant historical records remains is quite sensible because of the saying "few historical records survives" and it is not absolutely far from drawing the conclusion that meteorite collision had nothing to do with the cooling period.

Finally, the given reason in supporting the volcanic eruption school is not substantial at all to make the final conclusion either. First, the arguer fails to present more details and specific contents of the "surviving Asian historical records" on their discovery and function that could lead to the point about "a loud boom". Similarly, the arguer does not tell us why "a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption". Second, assumably, the loud boom really existed and could cause the volcanic eruption, however, this reason has no necessary relationship with the statement that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. Thus, the arguer just gives us the possible causes that made the volcanic eruption but he still neglected the significant link that could put the causal relationship between the cooling and the volcanic eruption together.（后面这2断比较清楚，可以考虑不要第2段）
In general, incomplete explanations, the lack of insufficient （sufficient）evidence as well as the weak logic inference of the final conclusion has made this argument not articulate. The arguer may have to collect more information and clarify the information with scientific methods before he makes the conclusion.

真的佩服你这么短的时间写出这种水平的文章，不错，不错，对了，你好久考呢？

dganggangUID: 2125101

改得太少了吧
我希望看到血迹斑斑 恶言恶语啊！

智恩UID: 2160717

The arguer tries to explain the main cause that made the cooling period of the earth in the mid-sixth century. A huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth are considered as the possible causes that blocked enough sunlight to lower the temperatures. For the existence of certain Asian historical records of the time, while no relevant proof could support the meteorite colliding, the arguer concludes that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption.

The logic of the inference in the argument is well-presented but it is not well-reasoned for some extinguished fallacies.

On the one hand, the arguer makes a mistake in list the possibilities that can cause the cooling in the sixth century. The arguer neither gives us two explanations without any necessary reasons, what's more, nor does he mention what makes the other potential possibilities groundless. Thus, his rough limit of the causes is totally unconvincing because the scale for the choices should be more extensive according to the factual situation, which the arguer also notes, "few historical records survive from that time".

On the other hand, the negation of the meteorite collision cause is based on a illogic judgment. The only reason that pumps（不知道pump在这里是啥意思） the arguer to get rid of the possibility to choose meteorite collision is due to "no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash." Although the flash is regarded as a reasonable（合理的现象，觉得不太通顺，可以说collision其中之一个现象是flash） phenomenon of the collision, the lack of such flash can not prove that a large meteorite never happened at that time. Furthermore, the fact that no extant historical records remains is quite sensible because of the saying "few historical records survives" and it is not absolutely far from drawing the conclusion that meteorite collision had nothing to do with the cooling period.

Finally, the given reason in supporting the volcanic eruption school is not substantial（这里是什么意思啊？是想表达没被证明吗？那要用substantiated，你用得那个形容词好像是实质的，巨大的意思:confused: ）at all to make the final conclusion either. First, the arguer fails to present more details and specific contents of the "surviving Asian historical records" on their discovery and function that could lead to the point about "a loud boom". Similarly, the arguer does not tell us why "a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption". Second, assumably, the loud boom really existed and could cause the volcanic eruption, however, this reason has no necessary relationship with the statement that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. Thus, the arguer just gives（gave，或provided） us the possible causes that made the volcanic eruption but he still neglected the significant link that could put the causal relationship between the cooling and the volcanic eruption together.

In general, incomplete explanations, the lack of insufficient （sufficient）evidence as well as the weak logic inference of the final conclusion has made this argument not articulate（unconvincing）The arguer may have to（should） collect more information and clarify the information with scientific methods before he makes the conclusion.


又看了一次，上次看得有点马虎，表打我啊！   :p
[ 本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2006-1-14 17:18 编辑 ]

智恩UID: 2160717

还有就是建议你把提纲写得仔细一点，既方便别人看，可能有时你表达的英语别人没懂，就可以看看提纲，也可以增加记忆
我以前提纲也写得少，现在改了，呵呵

dganggangUID: 2125101

substantial是我刚背到不久的 用在这里没问题
谢谢了！