Argument47 [smile-小组]-第五次作业，请各位不吝赐教

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

Argument47
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.

Outline
1 the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not compelling.
2 the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other reasons.
3 the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record.

In this argument, firstly, based on a record of loud boom, the arguer deducts that, it is a volcanic eruption not a large meteorite collision with the earth that leads to the dimming sunlight. Further, with the deduction and an assumption that the dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate, the arguer reaches his or her conclusion that the cooler climate in mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. However careful examination will reveal several fallacies existed in the reasoning line.

To begin with, the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not convincing. Other reasons could also contribute to the cooler climate. For example, it is possible that atmosphere around the earth, which can warm the earth by reflect radiation from earth in night, was very thin for some unknown reasons in mid-sixth century. It is equally possible that the distance between the earth and the sun was more far than other period as result of celestial mechanics. If so, these two cases could serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assumption that the dimming sunlight leads to cooler climate.

Also, the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other reasons. Sunspots which is well known to choke off solar energy in interior sun, for instance, is a potential factor which may also contribute to the weaken sunlight. If sunspot is in a more active period in mid-sixth century, the sunlight would be surely more dimming than other period.

Last but not least, the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light, is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record. Firstly, the relevant record of a bright flush related with a meteorite colliding might have not been found at present for some difficulties. For example, it may not be recorded in some books about history but in some books about legend and augur. What is more, the loud boom may be produced by other activities such as tsunami and earthquake, both of which can make a loud boom. Without ruling out these factors, the arguer can not make the deduction persuasive.

In conclusion, the argument is incredible on the base of groundless assumptions that dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate, and that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision makes the dimming sunlight. For a more convincing conclusion, the arguer has to provide more favoring evidence to explain the fallacies mentioned above.

[ 本帖最后由 zhy5186612 于 2006-8-1 23:37 编辑 ]

smiles11UID: 2232631

Argument47
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.

Outline
1 the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not compelling.
2 the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other reasons.
3 the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record.

In this argument, firstly, based on a record of loud boom, the arguer deducts that, it is a volcanic eruption not a large meteorite collision with the earth that leads to the dimming sunlight. Further, with the deduction and an assumption that the dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate, the arguer reaches his or her conclusion that the cooler climate in mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. However careful examination will reveal several fallacies existed in the reasoning line. -----开头这段好，一下子将里面的逻辑理清楚了，都让我怀疑自己的逻辑有问题了。

To begin with, the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not convincing. Other reasons could also contribute to the cooler climate. For example, it is possible that atmosphere around the earth, which can warm the earth by reflect radiation---应该反射什么？ from earth in night, was very thin for some unknown reasons in mid-sixth century.----应该是晚上云层太薄不能保存获得的太阳热量-而不是云层遮住了太阳---这个原因真的挺好的。 It is equally possible that the distance between the earth and the sun was more far than other period as result of celestial mechanics. If so, these two cases could serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assumption that the dimming sunlight leads to cooler climate.

Also, the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other reasons. Sunspots which is well known to choke off solar energy in interior sun, for instance, is a potential factor which may also contribute to the weaken sunlight. If sunspot is in a more active period in mid-sixth century, the sunlight would be surely more dimming than other period. ---为什么不和上一段一起写呢，说的是同一个问题！

Last but not least, the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light, is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record. Firstly, the relevant record of a bright flush---falsh related with a meteorite colliding might have not been found at present for some difficulties. For example, it may not be recorded in some books about history but in some books about legend and augur. What is more, the loud boom may be produced by other activities such as tsunami and earthquake, both of which can make a loud boom. Without ruling out these factors, the arguer can not make the deduction persuasive. 还有就是即使是火山，他足以导致全球气候变冷吗？仅仅有亚洲和欧洲的记录，不足以推倒全球便暖。将这些加进去就会充实很多！

In conclusion, the argument is incredible on the base of groundless assumptions that dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate, and that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision makes the dimming sunlight. For a more convincing conclusion, the arguer has to provide more favoring evidence to explain the fallacies mentioned above.

加油，我们都可以做的更好的！

applehattieUID: 2195344

Outline
1 the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not compelling.
2 the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other reasons.
3 the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record.

In this argument, firstly, based on a record of loud boom, the arguer deducts that, （没有逗号吧）it is a volcanic eruption not a large meteorite colliding with the earth that leads to the dimming sunlight. Further, with the deduction and an assumption that the dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate, the arguer reaches his or her conclusion that the cooler climate in mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. However careful examination will reveal several fallacies existed in the reasoning line.  这个顺序好像不对吧，是先假设不是火山就是陨石吧，再推理是火山，而且我觉得应该先攻击这个dilemma。

To begin with, the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not compelling. Other reasons could also contribute to the cooler climate. For example, it is possible that atmosphere around the earth, which can warm the earth by reflect radiation from earth in night, was very thin for some unknown reasons in mid-sixth century. It is equally possible that the distance between the earth and the sun was more far than other period as result of celestial mechanics. If so, these two cases could serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assumption that the dimming sunlight leads to cooler climate. （这两个可能性想法有点大胆，呵呵，）

Also, the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other reasons（possible alternatives会不会好一点？）. Sunspots which is well known to choke off solar energy in interior sun, for instance, is a potential factor which may also contribute to the weaken sunlight. If sunspot is in a more active period in mid-sixth century, the sunlight would be surely more dimming than other period. (感觉一二两段说的是同一个问题）

Last but not least, the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light, is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record. Firstly, the relevant record of a bright flush related with a meteorite colliding might have not been found at present for some difficulties. For example（这个是不是可以不说啊好像不是具体的例子，只是一种可能性啊，上面的也一样）, it may not be recorded in some books about history but in some books about legend and augur. What is more, the loud boom may be produced by other activities such as tsunami and earthquake, both of which can make a loud boom. Without ruling out these factors, the arguer can not make the deduction（换一个allegation） persuasive.

In conclusion, the argument is incredible on the base of groundless assumption that dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate. For a more convincing conclusion, the arguer has to provide more favoring evidence to explain the fallacies mentioned above.
这是我的提纲，我们可以相互讨论一下啊
1.The arguer commits a dilemma that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is the primary cause of the sharp declining temperature of earth.
2. The author fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that the significantly cooler due to a volcanic eruption.
3. Without excluding other possible alternative the allegation is unconvincing.

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

Argument47
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.

Outline
1 the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not compelling.
2 the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other reasons.
3 the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record.

In this argument, firstly, based on a record of loud boom, the arguer deducts that, it is a volcanic eruption not a large meteorite colliding with the earth that leads to the dimming sunlight. Further, with the deduction and an assumption that the dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate, the arguer reaches his or her conclusion that the cooler climate in mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. However careful examination will reveal several fallacies existing in the reasoning line.

To begin with, the assumption, that cooler climate is caused by the dimming sunlight based on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, is not compelling. Other reasons could also contribute to the cooler climate. It is possible that atmosphere around the earth, which can warm the earth by reflect short-wave radiation from earth in night, was very thin for some unknown reasons in mid-sixth century. It is equally possible that the distance between the earth and the sun was more far than other period as result of celestial mechanics. If so, these two cases could serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assumption that the dimming sunlight leads to cooler climate.

Also, the assumption, that either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding makes the dimming sunlight, can be challenged by other possible alternatives. Sunspots which is well known to choke off solar energy in interior sun, for instance, is a potential factor which may also contribute to the weaken sunlight. If sunspot is in a more active period in mid-sixth century, the sunlight would be surely more dimming than other period.

Last but not least, the deduction that a volcanic eruption but not a meteorite colliding leads to the dimming light, is not convincing only on a base of a loud boom in Asian historical record. Firstly, the relevant record of a bright flash related with a meteorite colliding might have not been found at present for some difficulties. It may not be recorded in some books about history but in some books about legend and augur. Secondly, the loud boom may be produced by other activities such as tsunami and earthquake, either of which can make a loud boom. What is more, a common volcanic eruption may not be enough to make the dimming light all over the world. Without ruling out these factors, the arguer can not make the allegation persuasive.

In conclusion, the argument is incredible on the base of groundless assumption that dimming sunlight contributes to the cooler climate. For a more convincing conclusion, the arguer has to provide more favoring evidence to explain the fallacies mentioned above.