argument47 smile-B 第五次作业 球狠拍，有拍必回

dychangfengUID: 2216148

47
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.

In this argument, the arguer try to locate the most possible reason for significantly cooler of earth in the mid-sixth century. Though the arguer’s recommendation seems sound at first glance, it commits several logic fallacies for the following reasons. For one thing, there must be other reasons that can lead to the sun and extremely cold temperature in Asia and Europe.

Though the author's conclusion is based on the assumption that it was the something happening on the earth that result in a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures, the author fails to give us sufficient evidence to support it. We can learn easily from common sense and experience that some thing happening in the sun or other planets or stars that have closely relationship with earth can also create the earth's cooler. The arguer unfairly alleged that it must be the earth's responsibility for earth's cooler following by giving two scenarios that can contribute to the situation. Only depending on the mere surviving historical reports, how can the author give birth to this questionable assumption without any specific information about the earth's cooler?

Even though we concede the author's assumption, we still can not come to the author's groundless contention for the author presents a false dilemma, since the two possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives. For one thing, the author failed to rule out other scenarios that can lead to the sun and extremely cold temperature in Asia and Europe in addition to the volcano and meteoric collision. For another thing, only Asia and Europe are involved in these accounts. Lacking further investigation in other continents, we cannot generalize these possibilities to the whole earth.

Finally, regardless the rectitude of what have discussed above, the arguer's assertion is still gratuitous without the elimination of other scenarios that could lead to the earth's significantly cooler. It may be a volcanic eruption or a meteoric collision or the combined function of the two that be responsible for the earth's cooler. The author ruled out other possibilities relying on the records mentioning a loud boom. That's questionable to some extent. One thing the author fail to take into account is that a loud boom is not necessarily accompanied by a volcanic eruption. Another thing the other come to extremes is that not every meteoric collision has a sudden flash of light. What's more, there is not such records left does not means there is not such things since there is mere records left about that time. And, there is also a possibility that a volcanic eruption and meteoric collision may happen at the same time.
To sum up, unless the author provide more information which could lend more support to his or her assertion such as the earth' s cooler was resulted from something happening in the earth and the two Contingencies are exclusive alternatives, I can not confirm the author's concern about this issue.

smiles11UID: 2232631

47
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.

In this argument, the arguer try to locate the most possible reason for significantly cooler of earth in the mid-sixth century. Though the arguer’s recommendation seems sound at first glance, it commits several logic fallacies for the following reasons. For one thing,---为什么会有这个词？ there must be other reasons that can lead to the sun and extremely cold temperature in Asia and Europe.

Though the author's conclusion is based on the assumption that it was the something happening---好像没有这个用法，瞬间动词 on the earth that result in a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures, the author fails to give us sufficient evidence to support it. We can learn easily from common sense and experience that some thing happening in the sun or other planets or stars that have closely relationship with earth can also create the earth's cooler. The arguer unfairly alleged that it must be the earth's responsibility什么意思？ for earth's cooler following by giving two scenarios that can contribute to the situation. Only depending on the mere surviving historical reports, how can the author give birth to this questionable assumption without any specific information about the earth's cooler?

Even though we concede the author's assumption, we still can not come to the author's groundless contention for the author presents a false dilemma, since the two possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives. For one thing, the author failed to rule out other scenarios that can lead to the sun and extremely cold temperature in Asia and Europe in addition to the volcano and meteoric collision----这一部分和上一段重复吗？我有点糊涂！. For another thing, only Asia and Europe are involved in these accounts. Lacking further investigation in other continents, we cannot generalize these possibilities to the whole earth.

Finally, regardless the rectitude of what have discussed above, the arguer's assertion is still gratuitous without the elimination of other scenarios that could lead to the earth's significantly cooler---为什么每段都讲这个其他原因呢？. It may be a volcanic eruption or a meteoric collision or the combined function of the two that be responsible for the earth's cooler. The author ruled out other possibilities relying on the records mentioning a loud boom. That's questionable to some extent. One thing the author fail to take into account is that a loud boom is not necessarily accompanied by a volcanic eruption. Another thing the other come to extremes is that not every meteoric collision has a sudden flash of light. What's more, there is not such records left does not means there is not such things since there is mere records left about that time. And, there is also a possibility that a volcanic eruption and meteoric collision may happen at the same time. ---这一段这样反正也挺好的！

To sum up, unless the author provide more information which could lend more support to his or her assertion such as the earth' s cooler was resulted from something happening in the earth and the two Contingencies are exclusive alternatives---有点费解::$:$:$:$, I can not confirm the author's concern about this issue.

是不是已经开始限时写了？如果是我就没有什么好说的了；但是如果不是，我也没有什么好说的。就说加油吧:):):):):)！

PS；我的作文一直等你改噢！

dychangfengUID: 2216148

这篇argu的整体思路是：
1 制冷不一定是由于地球的原因；
2就算是地球的原因也不一定只有那两种可能
3就算是那两种可能也不一定是火山爆发
没有把自己的i想法完全表达出来，继续努力吧

smiles11UID: 2232631

但是第一错误中，不是已经包括了a large meteorite colliding with Earth 了么？所以读得时候就有点糊涂，抱歉噢！

而且第二个错误中也包含了第三个错误：不一定是两种可能；已经排除了那两种可能了，是吗？主要的是第二哥错误中，没有指出其他可能。

我的理解，哈！错了不要打我！