argument47 十二月高强组第二周周四作业, 求拍!

waidswUID: 2256074

题目：ARGUMENT 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.
字数：542          用时：0:48:00          日期：2006-11-29

1 太阳变暗和气候变冷不一定是相关的.
2 声音不一定是火山爆发产生的
3 没有记录不一定代表没有发生过
4 就算发生了火山爆发,也不一定是变冷的原因

The arguer claims that the earth cooling happened in the mid-sixth century was due to a volcanic eruption. To support this claim, the arguer provides that the accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and the extremely cold temperature. In addition there are no historical records mention the flush which is created by the meteorite collision, however, metion a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. At first glance, the claim seems appealing, careful scrutiny of the evidences, however, reveals several flaws with the claim.

To begin with, the argument depends on the assumption that the dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures were happened contemporarily and both the consequences of a certain natural issue. Yet lacking evidence to the contrary that it is entirely possible that the two kinds of phenomenon were not happened in the same period of time and have no relationships with each other. Hence other sorts of causes, such as the movement of planet, could lead to the cooling. Without ruling out the possibility that the dimming and the cooling are two independent issues, the claim is dubious at best.

Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that the sound recorded in ancient Asia is created by the volcanic eruption. There are many other ways could cause a loud boom. Perhaps the earthquake, tsunami, or other forms of natural phenomenon happened in that time and was recorded. Perhaps the location where the sound was recorded has no volcanoes nearby, if so, the historical record lends little support to the claim.

Thirdly, the mere fact that there are no hstorical records of flash lends little credible support to the arguer's claim. On the one hand, it is possible that the records of the flash are destroy by myriads of reasons. Common sense informs me that the historical records are only part of the entire history, and the records are vulnerable to wars, revolutions and other unstable features of the society. On the other hand, it is very likely that the flash was not even mentioned by people in that period. Maybe the eruption happened in the rural area such as the north or south polar that human being never have been there in that time, accordingly was not recorded.

Finally, even if a volcano erupted in that time, it is not necessary means that the cool weather was caused by the eruption. There is no proof to illustrate the casual relationship between the volcanic eruption and the cooling. Perhaps the eruption was taken place after the cooling. Perhaps the eruption of the volcano was not strong enough to create a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere. Absent credible information it is the volcanic eruption lead to the cooling, I cannot agree with the arguer's claim.


To sum up, the claim that volcanic eruption is the cause of cooling. is unsubstantiated as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should offer the information on whether the dimming and cooling happened at the same time, and the arguer should also provide clear evidence that the recorder loud boom is created by the volcanic eruption, and the eruption was indeed the cause of cooling. To better evaluate the claim, I still have to know the meteorite collision actually did not happen.

[ 本帖最后由 waidsw 于 2006-12-1 22:07 编辑 ]

sunnie_518UID: 2136235

The arguer claims that the earth cooling happened in the mid-sixth century was due to a volcanic eruption. To support this claim, the arguer provides that the accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and the extremely cold temperature. In addition there are no historical records mention the flush which is created by the meteorite collision, however, metion a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. At first glance, the claim seems appealing, careful scrutiny of the evidences, however, reveals several flaws with the claim.(呵呵，这点我都忽略了，到时候加上）

To begin with, the argument depends on the assumption that the dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures were happened contemporarily and both the consequences of a certain natural issue. Yet lacking evidence to the contrary that it is entirely possible that the two kinds of phenomenon were not happened in the same period of time and have no relationships with each other. Hence other sorts of causes, such as the movement of planet, could lead to the cooling. Without ruling out the possibility that the dimming and the cooling are two independent issues, the claim is dubious at best.

Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that the sound recorded in ancient Asia is created by the volcanic eruption. There are many other ways could cause a loud boom. Perhaps the earthquake, tsunami, or other forms of natural phenomenon happened in that time and was recorded. Perhaps the location where the sound was recorded has no volcanoes nearby, if so, the historical record lends little support to the claim.（sound和气候的逻辑关系也要论证一下吧）

Thirdly, the mere fact that there are no hstorical records of flash lends little credible support to the arguer's claim. On the one hand, it is possible that the records of the flash are destroy by myriads of reasons. Common sense informs me that the historical records are only part of the entire history, and the records are vulnerable to wars, revolutions and other unstable features of the society. On the other hand, it is very likely that the flash was not even mentioned by people in that period. Maybe the eruption happened in the rural area such as the north or south polar that human being never have been there in that time, accordingly was not recorded. （总结句？）

Finally, even if a volcano erupted in that time, it is not necessary means that the cool weather was caused by the eruption. There is no proof to illustrate the casual relationship between the volcanic eruption and the cooling. Perhaps the eruption was taken place after the cooling. Perhaps the eruption of the volcano was not strong enough to create a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere. Absent credible information it is the volcanic eruption lead to the cooling, I cannot agree with the arguer's claim.


To sum up, the claim that volcanic eruption is the cause of cooling. is unsubstantiated as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should offer the information on whether the dimming and cooling happened at the same time, and the arguer should also provide clear evidence that the recorder loud boom is created by the volcanic eruption, and the eruption was indeed the cause of cooling. To better evaluate the claim, I still have to know the meteorite collision actually did not happen.
楼主的argument写的不错，语言和逻辑都很好，要好好讨教