argument47 MYTH小组第6次作业 Phevos

phevos_xxUID: 2258006

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: 459          TIME: 0:38:05          DATE: 2006-11-9

In this argument, the arguer assert that the earth suddenly became significantly cooler in the mid-sixth century is probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this assertion, the arguer lists two possible reasons that would lead to the phenomenon. One is the volcanic eruption, and the other is the large meteorite collision. The arguer excludes the possibility of a large meteorite collision by some records in the history. However, the arguer's conclusion bases on some unconvincing analysis.

First of all, the arguer make an inaccurate assumption that the cold weather in the mid-sixth century dues to an alternative reason. The one is a large meteorite collision, whereas the other is a volcanic eruption. The arguer cites some historical records that both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures to support his assertion that the dimming of the sun has greatly affected the temperature. However, as the arguer cited, the historical records are few, maybe these records only show us the weather in some few area in the vast Asian and European land. It is not representative enough to give us the fact that the sky in most part of Asia and Europe has a dimming of the sun and extremely cold. It is very possible that this is only accidental.

In the second place, assuming that the cold weather in the mid-sixth century is caused by the alternative reason, the meteorite colliding or the volcanic eruption, the arguer excludes the possibility of a large meteorite collision by unconvincing reasons, both the record of a loud boom and the lack of record of a flash of light. It is mentioned that a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light. And since the sudden bright flash lasts so little time that it is very possible that no one notices this or no one who would record the history does not see this happens. So we can not exclude the possibility of meteorite collision hastily.

Moreover, the arguer makes a wrong conclusion that the fact cited in some historical records that the mentioned loud boom is the symbol of a volcanic eruption. Many things could cause a loud boom, such as an earth quake. If there is a large volcanic eruption, I think the most obvious thing is the smoke filled in the sky, not the loud boom.

In conclusion, the arguer does not show enough convincing evidence to support his assertion that the cold weather in the mid-sixth century is caused by a volcanic eruption. In my opinion, since there are so few historical records about the weather in that period, we can not draw any conclusion about why the weather became so cold in that period.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this argument, the arguer assert asserts that the earth suddenly became significantly cooler in the mid-sixth century is probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this assertion, the arguer lists two possible reasons that would lead to the phenomenon. One is the volcanic eruption, and the other is the large meteorite collision. The arguer excludes the possibility of a large meteorite collision by some records in the history. However, the arguer's conclusion bases on some unconvincing analysis.

First of all, the arguer make an inaccurate assumption that the cold weather in the mid-sixth century dues to an alternative reason. The one is a large meteorite collision, whereas the other is a volcanic eruption. The arguer cites some historical records that both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures to support his assertion that the dimming of the sun has greatly affected the temperature. However, as the arguer cited, the historical records are few, maybe these records only show us the weather in some few area in the vast Asian and European land. It is not representative enough to give us the fact that the sky in most part of Asia and Europe has a dimming of the sun and extremely cold. It is very possible that this is only accidental. 用证据不足来置疑dimming of the sun未曾发生过也不一定是唯一原因自然没有错, 只是感觉展开的不够, 能列举下他因, 比如别的原因导致天气变冷就好了, 最好直接指出这之间不一定存在因果关系. 另外置疑地球是否真的变冷不太合适, 因为这个是本题的前提.

In the second place有点多余, 既然做了让步假设就没必要说是另外一处了, assuming that the cold weather in the mid-sixth century is caused by the alternative reason, the meteorite colliding or the volcanic eruption, the arguer excludes the possibility of a large meteorite collision by unconvincing reasons, both the record of a loud boom and the lack of record of a flash of light. It is mentioned that a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light. And since the sudden bright flash lasts so little time that it is very possible that no one notices this or no one who would record the history does not see this happens. So we can not exclude the possibility of meteorite collision hastily.

Moreover, the arguer makes a wrong conclusion that the fact cited in some historical records that the mentioned loud boom is the symbol of a volcanic eruption. Many things could cause a loud boom, such as an earth quake. If there is a large volcanic eruption, I think the most obvious thing is the smoke filled in the sky, not the loud boom.这里也还可以补充,比如即使是有火山喷发, 火山喷发是否真的引发了Dimming of the sun也是值得置疑的.

In conclusion, the arguer does not show enough convincing evidence to support his assertion that the cold weather in the mid-sixth century is caused by a volcanic eruption. In my opinion, since there are so few historical records about the weather in that period, we can not draw any conclusion about why the weather became so cold in that period.

总体感觉比以前进步了很多, 逻辑层次清楚多了, 就是攻击展开的不太够, 很多问题都可以进行深一步的分析和说明(当然现在这样也挺不错了). 题目中的证据只提了亚洲和欧洲, 这一点也可以作为攻击点. 另外First of all, in the second place, moreover给人感觉是并列的攻击, 但后两条是一个逻辑层次上的, 让它们并列会比较合理.