argument47 Ares战队第七次作业(by victor)

victorduguUID: 2176422

TOPIC: 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.

WORDS: 448          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-29



The arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century can be attributed to a volcanic eruption. However, the evidence provided throughout the argument fails to bolster his conclusion. As far as I am concerned, this argument suffers from the following drawbacks.



To begin with, the author falsely assumes that a dimming of the sun led to the sudden decrease in temperature. Yet there are a myriad of other factors that can cause the decline of the temperature, except dimming of the sun. It is entirely possible that at that time, the composition of the atmosphere changed dramatically. For example, the rate of Carbon Dioxide known as an important gas in keeping the earth warm suddenly dropped, which would inevitably resulted in the loss of heat in the earth. Without ruling out other possibilities like this that can be the causes of the decrease of temperature, the author cannot convince me that it was the dimming of sun that led to the cooler, thus fails to lend strong support to any conclusion depending on it.



Secondly, even assuming the foregoing assumption is reliable, the author cannot rule out the possibility that meteorite collision was the cause of the cooler. Though no extant historical records of the time mention a flash which was supposed to happen during the meteorite collision, it is entirely likely that the records have not been preserved. Besides, the author stated that surviving Asian historical records mention a loud boom, which can also serve as the evidence of some collision. Therefore, merely based on the lacking of records of the flash, the author cannot unfairly rule out that meteorite collision caused the dimming of the sun.



Finally, the author assumes without justification that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. As the boom cited by the author to support his conclusion can be caused by many other incidences, such as meteorite collision and earthquake, it alone does not suffice to prove the happening of eruption at that time. Even if the boom was caused by a volcanic eruption, common sense informs us that volcanic eruption can take place all the time. Nevertheless, there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate that the strength of the volcanic eruption can be strong enough to result in the dimming of sun. For the above reasons, it is difficult to access the strength of his conclusion.



To sum up, this argument is not as reasonable as it stands. To make it more convincing, the author would have to provide more information about the cause of the sudden cooler. In addition, he would have to prove that it is volcanic eruption instead of meteorite collision that led to the dimming of sun.

renliyunUID: 2209571

The arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century can be attributed to a volcanic eruption. However, the evidence provided throughout（这句有点不通） the argument fails to bolster his(把前面改成arguer) conclusion. As far as I am concerned, this argument suffers from the following drawbacks.



To begin with, the author falsely assumes that a dimming of the sun led to the sudden decrease in temperature. (好象题目里是说这是一个亚洲和欧洲的历史记录,而不是一个假设吧?他最终是为了说明全球气温下降了,是为第一句提供一个证据吧???)Yet there are a myriad of other factors that can cause the decline of the temperature, except dimming of the sun. It is entirely possible that at that time, the composition of the atmosphere changed dramatically. For example, the rate of Carbon Dioxide known as an important gas in keeping the earth warm suddenly dropped, which would inevitably resulted in the loss of heat in the earth. Without ruling out other possibilities like this that can be the causes of the decrease of temperature, the author cannot convince me that it was the dimming of sun that led to the cooler, thus fails to lend strong support to any conclusion depending on it.



Secondly, even assuming the foregoing assumption is reliable, the author cannot rule out the possibility that meteorite collision was the cause of the cooler(temperature). Though no extant historical records of the (that)time mention a flash which was supposed to happen during the meteorite collision, it is entirely likely that the records have not been preserved. Besides, the author stated that surviving Asian historical records mention (过去时)a loud boom, which can also serve as the evidence of some collision. Therefore, merely based on the lacking of records of the flash, the author cannot unfairly rule out that meteorite collision caused the dimming of the sun.



Finally, the author assumes without justification(这个短语放到后面) that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. As the boom cited by the author to support his conclusion can be caused by many other incidences, such as meteorite collision and earthquake, it alone does not suffice(sufficient) to prove the happening of eruption at that time. Even if the boom was caused by a volcanic eruption, common sense informs us that volcanic eruption can take place all the time. Nevertheless, there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate that the strength of the volcanic eruption can be strong enough to result in the dimming of sun. For the above reasons, it is difficult to access the strength of his conclusion.


To sum up, this argument is not as reasonable as it stands. To make it more convincing, the author would have to provide more information about the cause of the sudden cooler. In addition, he would have to prove that it is volcanic eruption instead of meteorite collision that led to the dimming of sun.

支持文章的各个理由再思考一下吧