argument47 [smile-B组] 第五次作业，大家的砖头雨啊！～

applehattieUID: 2195344

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.

Without considering other possibilities, the arguer points out that the significantly cooler of the earth is either caused by a volcanic eruption or the result of a large meteorite colliding with earth, further he confirms that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. However, this argument seems convincing at the first glance, but after careful pondering, I find it suffer from several fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer commits a dilemma either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth is the primary cause of the sharp declining temperature of earth, without ruling out other possibilities that may cause the cooling. In the argument, author assumes that it must be a large dust which block the ample sunlight to lower the global temperature, and the volcanic eruption or a meteorite colliding can create such a large dust. So either the eruption or the colliding must be the criminal. But we are not well informed that what is the direct cause of cooling. It might be the case that there is still existing uncover document recorded the genuine cause of the sharp cooling. It might also be the case that during the process of checking, scientists discover the other main cause of the cooler, and it has nothing to do with a large dust.

In the second place, even if the cooler was caused by a large dust that impede the earth from having sufficient sunlight, the argument's author also fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that it was the large dust produced by volcanic eruption that cause the suddenly cooler. Maybe the sudden bright flash of light was not recorded at that time because it happened only in a few seconds no one pay attention to it, maybe it was written down but we have not found yet. In that case, perhaps the loud boom recorded by Asian have no necessary association with a volcanic eruption. The allegation is ungrounded without ruling out the possibilities we discuss here.

Last but not least, without excluding other possible alternative the deduction is gratuitous. The significantly cooler is related with the overall earth, it is impossible to draw such a conclusion based on several Asian and European historical records. The universalism of these records is doubtful. Maybe the cooling just invaded Asia and Europe, and the rest continent of world still have the normal temperature.

In sum, the passage seems to be plausible, but in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. If the arguer provide enough evidence to confirm that it is the volcanic eruption that cause the cooling, and rule out the given possibilities discussed above, this argument will be thorough and warrantable.

smiles11UID: 2232631

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.

Without considering other possibilities, the arguer points out that the significantly cooler of the earth is either caused by a volcanic eruption or the result of a large meteorite colliding with earth, further he confirms that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. However, this argument seems convincing at the first glance, but after careful pondering, I find it suffer from several fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer commits a dilemma either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth is the primary cause of the sharp declining temperature of earth, without ruling out other possibilities that may cause the cooling.-----这个TS有点长，句子结构需要重新安排一下，那个is是否对呢？ In the argument, author assumes that it must be a large dust which block the ample sunlight to lower the global temperature, and the volcanic eruption or a meteorite colliding can create such a large dust. So either the eruption or the colliding must be the criminal. But we are not well informed that what is the direct cause of cooling. It might be the case that there is still existing uncover document recorded the genuine cause of the sharp cooling. It might also be the case that during the process of checking, scientists discover the other main cause of the cooler, and it has nothing to do with a large dust. ----关键就是要指出other是什么，这样才让人觉得攻击有力！

In the second place, even if the cooler was caused by a large dust that impede the earth from having sufficient sunlight, the argument's author also fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that it was the large dust produced by volcanic eruption that cause the suddenly cooler. Maybe the sudden bright flash of light was not recorded at that time because it happened only in a few seconds no one pay attention to it, maybe it was written down but we have not found yet. In that case, perhaps the loud boom recorded by Asian have no necessary association with a volcanic eruption. The allegation is ungrounded without ruling out the possibilities we discuss here. In that case,---用这个句子，好像下面继续讲前一个问题的样子，但是你讲下一个问题了，需要注意falsh 和boom代表的是两个不同的气候变冷的原因，所以需要稍微改一下！

Last but not least, without excluding other possible alternative the deduction is gratuitous. The significantly cooler is related with the overall earth, it is impossible to draw such a conclusion based on several Asian and European historical records. The universalism of these records is doubtful. Maybe the cooling just invaded Asia and Europe, and the rest continent of world still have the normal temperature.--这一句推理好！

In sum, the passage seems to be plausible, but in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. If the arguer provide enough evidence to confirm that it is the volcanic eruption that cause the cooling, and rule out the given possibilities discussed above, this argument will be thorough and warrantable.

错误都找的挺好的，但是内部的逻辑论证还需要加强，加油啊！

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

你提纲我看了， 我也说一下我意见吧

1）首先，那个16-mid 变冷是事实，后面的acounts只是佐证而不是充要证据；作者的隐含前提‘dimming of the sun导致地球变冷’正是基于其中的一个佐证；再后面的Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth 是揭示什么导致‘dimming of the sun‘的 [我第一段叙述时，按逻辑线写得，不是各个论据的时间先后顺序]
2）所以逻辑线为：
Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth -----〉dimming of the sun-----〉significantly cooler因此攻击顺序为 a dimming of the sun导致地球变冷’ 是无效假设
                      b Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth-----〉dimming of the sun是无效假设                     
                      c boom 和 flash 推出火山有问题
即从最靠近结论的那个推理依次往前，这样只要前面的能服人(比如a)就可以证明结论不成立了，后面b,c即时正确也没有用。

yxjessieUID: 194526

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.

Without considering other possibilities, the arguer points out that the significantly cooler of the earth is either caused by a volcanic eruption or the result of a large meteorite colliding with earth, further he confirms that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. However, this argument seems convincing at the first glance, but after careful pondering, I find it suffer from several fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer commits a dilemma either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth is the primary cause of the sharp declining temperature of earth, without ruling out other possibilities that may cause the cooling. In the argument, （the）author assumes that it must be a large dust which block the ample sunlight to lower the global temperature, and the volcanic eruption or a meteorite colliding can create such a large dust. So either the eruption or the colliding must be the criminal(可以这样用吗？我不肯定). But we are not well informed that what is the direct cause of cooling（去掉that，改成what the direct cause of cooling is.）. It might be the case that there is still existing uncover document recorded the genuine cause of the sharp cooling. It might also be the case that during the process of checking, scientists discover the other main cause of the cooler (cooling), and it has nothing to do with a large dust.

In the second place, even if the cooler(cooling) was caused by a large dust that impede the earth from having sufficient sunlight, the argument's(去掉argument’s) author also fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that it was the large dust produced by volcanic eruption that cause the suddenly cooler. Maybe the sudden bright flash of light was not recorded at that time because it happened only in a few seconds no one pay attention to it, maybe it was written down but we have not found yet. In that case, perhaps the loud boom recorded by Asian have (has) no necessary association with a volcanic eruption. The allegation is ungrounded without ruling out the possibilities we discuss here.

Last but not least, without excluding (including?) other possible alternative the deduction is gratuitous. The significantly cooler is related with the overall earth, it is impossible to draw such a conclusion based on several Asian and European historical records. The universalism of these records is doubtful. Maybe the cooling just invaded Asia and Europe, and the rest continent of world still have the normal temperature.

In sum, the passage seems to be plausible, but in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. If the arguer provide enough evidence to confirm that it is the volcanic eruption that cause the cooling, and rule out the given possibilities discussed above, this argument will be thorough and warrantable.
你把cooler和cooling搞混了。你的逻辑顺序和我不太一样，不过都找到了错误。我个人感觉这篇文章比较难写，大家多交流。

[ 本帖最后由 yxjessie 于 2006-8-2 22:36 编辑 ]