argument47 Ares战队George第七次作业

baihe1988UID: 2203505

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.
正文：
In this argument, the author alleges that it is the eruption of a huge volcanic, which caused the significant cooling of Earth's temperature in the mid-sixth century. After careful scrutiny of the arguer's reasoning, any one can find several critical flaws, which weakens the arguer's last conclusion seriously. Here comes my refutation.

To begin with, the arguer has unfairly assumed that only two reasons, which are volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding with the Earth, can result in the dimming of the sun. However, it is entirely likely that the dimming of the sun may result from other possible reasons, such as smoke caused by human beings, any other factors made by some kind of life-form coming from outer space and so on. Without ruling out these probabilities, the arguer can not convince us that his assumption is totally reasonable, let alone his last conclusion.

Next, even if the precondition discussed above is proper, the arguer's conclusion is still doubtable in many other aspects. First of all, it is unreasonable to rule out the possibility of meteorite collision in this argument. That no historical records of the time mention some kind of sudden bright flash of light does not mean that no collision has ever happened at that time. Because it is totally possible that the record concerning the collision has ever been lost during the long time of history from that time to nowadays, hence, the arguer should not rule out the possibility of collision, without considering these relevant factors. As a result, the final conclusion of this argument is problematic as well.

Secondly, even if the ruling out of meteorite collision is reasonable, we cannot believe the arguer's reasoning either, because the arguer has also made a unwarranted presumption that the surviving historical records of loud boom found in Asia can justify that the considerable cooling of Earth is caused by a huge volcanic eruption. There are also many other phenomena can result in the loud boom, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and even the meteorite collision mentioned above. Without eliminating these possibilities, all of which are of the same importance as the volcanic eruption, the arguer can not testify that his process of reasoning is logical and credible.

In summary, the arguer's final conclusion is based on a series of unfounded premises and unproved presumptions, all of which have weakened the last conclusion significantly. In order to strengthen his reasoning in logic, the arguer has to provide much more information concerning the historical records of the sudden cooling and the actual reasons of the loud boom. Only by supplying these evidences, can the arguer make his reasoning process logical and reasonable.

ketchupUID: 2182553

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.
正文：
In this argument, the author alleges that it is the eruption of a huge volcanic, which caused the significant cooling of Earth's temperature in the mid-sixth century. After careful scrutiny of the arguer's reasoning, any one can find several critical flaws, which weakens the arguer's last conclusion seriously. Here comes my refutation.

To begin with, the arguer has unfairly assumed that only two reasons, which are volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding with the Earth, can result in the dimming of the sun. However, it is entirely likely that the dimming of the sun may result from other possible reasons, such as smoke caused by human beings, any other factors made by some kind of life-form coming from outer space and so on. Without ruling out these probabilities, the arguer can not（连写） convince us that his assumption is totally reasonable, let alone his last conclusion.

Next, even if the precondition discussed above is proper, the arguer's conclusion is still doubtable in many other aspects. First of all, it is unreasonable to rule out the possibility of meteorite collision in this argument. That no historical records of the time mention some kind of sudden bright flash of light does not mean that no collision has ever happened at that time. Because it is totally possible that the record concerning the collision has ever been lost during the long time of history from that time to nowadays, hence, the arguer should not rule out the possibility of collision, without considering these relevant factors. As a result, the final conclusion of this argument is problematic as well.

Secondly, even if the ruling out of meteorite collision is reasonable, we cannot believe the arguer's reasoning either, because the arguer has also made a unwarranted presumption that the surviving historical records of loud boom found in Asia can justify that the considerable cooling of Earth is caused by a huge volcanic eruption. There are also many other phenomena can result in the loud boom, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and even the meteorite collision mentioned above. Without eliminating these possibilities, all of which are of the same importance as the volcanic eruption, the arguer can not（连写） testify that his process of reasoning is logical and credible.

In summary, the arguer's final conclusion is based on a series of unfounded premises and unproved presumptions, all of which have weakened the last conclusion significantly. In order to strengthen his reasoning in logic, the arguer has to provide much more information concerning the historical records of the sudden cooling and the actual reasons of the loud boom. Only by supplying these evidences, can the arguer make his reasoning process logical and reasonable.
我写的时候还找了2点错误：1、作者没有提供足够的信息说明火山爆发能够导致气候变冷，而且太阳也不是地球热量的唯一来源。2、作者使用亚洲和欧洲的调查来表述全球的气候是片面的；因为写argument的时候最好要把错误都找出来，我找的也不见得就是全面正确的，至少也可以给你做个参考吧，觉得这篇文章写得不错。