Argument47 graduate06--Hamming组 自己的第4篇Argument.

graduate06UID: 2223299

A--47.
WORDS: 408          TIME: 35:00          DATE: 2006-11-30

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.

研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。

漏洞：
Survey----- records数量太少。作者不能基于极少量的记录对当时的情况进行推测。
Incomplete thoughts 非此即彼极端假设。
即使纪录是可信的，作者也不能说仅有两种可能的原因导致the cooling, for instance 太阳黑子活动减弱
Hasty generalization 差异概念
Even assuming that..
没有记录提及闪光=\=的确没有A large meteorite collision
有隆隆声=\=是火山爆发

WORDS: 408          TIME: 35:00          DATE: 2006-11-30
正文：
The argument' conclusion that the sudden decline of temperature in the mid-sixth century is due to the volcanic eruption seems apparent conclusion at first glance. However, close scrutiny of the evidence and of the line of the argument' reasoning reveals that the author provides nothing credible support to his conclusion. First, the reliability and (多一个the)generalizability of the historical records is open to question. In addition, the argument contains a fallacy of incomplete thought. The author also hastily generates the conclusion. I will discuss each of the aspects in turn.

The threshold assumption of the argument is that the few preserved records which mention a dimming of the sun and the abnormal cold weather in the mid-sixth century are reliable. Without providing the amount of the records, it is entirely possible that there are only one or two historical literature mention the cooling phenomenon of the mid-sixth century. In this case, any reasoning on the basis of it is untenable.

Even assuming that the records are reliable, the argument relies on the additional assumption that only two possible reasons which would explain the extremely cold phenomenon. The author provides nothing evidence to bolster the assumption. If so, it is equally possible that other reasons caused the change of climate. Perhaps, the abnormal activities of (多一个空格)sunspots led to the phenomenon at that time. Without examining and ruling out this alternative reason the conclusion remains unpersuasive.

Even assuming there are only two reasons which could lead to the cooling weather, the author also commits fallacies of hasty generalization. The argument provides no evidence that no extant historical records mention the flash amounts to that no such a large meteorite collision. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Given that the collision might happen in the mid-sixth century, it is quite possible that the accounts which record it have lost. Secondly, the author falsely assumes a loud boom equates to a volcanic eruption. Without exact information to substantiate the assumption, perhaps, the loud noise is thunder.

In sum, the author cannot justify his conclusion on the scant evidence provided in the argument. To support the conclusion the author would have to provide that the extant records are reliable--that there are indeed two possible reasons which might cause the cooling weather in the mid-sixth century. To better evaluate the argument we need more evidence that not only the large meteorite collision haven't happened but also a volcanic eruption caused the sudden change of weather in the mid-sixth century.
大家多指正！！谢谢！！！！

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2006-12-1 01:07 编辑 ]

graduate06UID: 2223299

自己进行修改的结果：（选用了一些好句式）


The argument’s conclusion that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption seems at first glance to be an apparent conclusion. However, close scrutiny of the evidence and of the argument’s line of reasoning reveals that the author provides little credible support for the conclusion. First, the reliability and generalizability of the history records is open to question. In addition, the argument contains a fallacy of incomplete thought. The author also hastily generalize the conclusion. I will discuss each of the aspects in turn.

A threshold assumption on which the argument relies is that some preserved accounts which refer to a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures are credible. The few records might constitute an insufficient small sample to draw any persuasive conclusion about why temperature suddenly declined in the mid-six century. Because the author fails to provide the exact number of the records, it is entirely possible that there are only one or two historical literature mentioned the cooling phenomenon. In this case, any reasoning on the basis of it is untenable.

Even assuming that the records are reliable, the argument relies on the additional assumption that only two possible reasons which would explain the abrupt change of climate. But the argument cites nothing evidence to bolster this assumption. It is equally possible that some other reasons can explain the phenomenon. For that matter, perhaps, abnormal activities of sunspots which lead to the climate change. Without considering and ruling out this alternative reason, the argument’ conclusion remains indefensible.

Even assuming that only two reasons which are responsible for the phenomenon, the author also commits fallacies of hasty generalization. First, the author provides no evidence that no extant historical records of the mid-six century mention the flash amounts to that no large meteorite collision. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Given that the collision might happen in the mid-sixth century, it is entirely possible that the records which mention such a large meteorite collision have lost. Second, the author also falsely equates a loud boom with a volcanic eruption. Perhaps, the loud noise mentioned in the records just thunder. If so, then the author can not confidentally conclude his conclusion.

In sum, the author cannot justify his or her recommendation on the scant evidence provided in the argument. To strengthen it the author would have to provide that the records are credible—that there are indeed two possible reasons which would cause the phenomenon. To better evaluate the argument we need more information that not only no large meteorite collision has happened but also a volcanic eruption happened and lead to the cooling at that time.

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2006-12-2 00:25 编辑 ]

rt860113UID: 2256886

The argument'conclusion that the sudden decline of temperature in the mid-sixth century isdue to the volcanic eruption seems apparent conclusion at first glance.（感觉用的挺好的，相比于上一篇感觉不那么呆板了）However, close scrutiny of the evidence and of（不需要） the line of the argument' reasoning reveals that the author（arguer下同） provides nothing credible supportto his conclusion.(不像上一篇只有一种no evidence to support的表达方式了) First, thereliability and generalizability of the historical records is（改为are） open to question. In addition, the argument contains a fallacy ofincomplete thought. The author（arguer） also hastily generates theconclusion（我觉得这一句可以和上一句合并为一个长句In addition, the arguer hastily generates theconclusion with the result that the argument contains a fallacy of incompletethought）. I willdiscuss each of the aspects in turn.

The threshold assumption of the argument (The threshold of assumptions in the argument) is that the few preserved records which mention adimming of the sun and the abnormal cold weather in the mid-sixth century arereliable. Without providing the amount of the records, it is entirely(是否过于绝对) possible that there are only one ortwo historical literature （which）mention the cooling phenomenon of the mid-sixth century. In thiscase, any reasoning on the basis of it is untenable.

Even assuming that the records are reliable, the argument relies on theadditional assumption that only two possible reasons which would explain theextremely cold phenomenon. The author (arguer) provides nothing evidence (convincing) to bolster the assumption. If so, it is equallypossible that other reasons caused the change of climate. Perhaps, the abnormal activities of sunspots led to thephenomenon at that time.(很好的一个反例) Without examiningand ruling out this alternative reason the conclusion remains unpersuasive.

Even assuming（之前加一个过度词会不会更好,furthermore） there are only two reasons whichcould lead to the cooling weather, the author（arguer） also commits fallacies ofhasty generalization. The argument provides no evidence that no extanthistorical records mention the flash amounts to that no such a large meteoritecollision. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Given that the collision mighthappen in the mid-sixth century, it is quite possible that the accounts whichrecord it have lost. Secondly, the author(arguer) falselyassumes that a loud boom equates to a volcaniceruption. Without exact information to substantiatethe assumption, perhaps, the loud noise is thunder.

In sum, the author（arguer） cannot justify hisconclusion on the scant evidence provided in the argument. To support theconclusion the author (arguer) would have to provide that the extant records arereliable--that there are indeed two possible reasons which might cause thecooling weather in the mid-sixth century. To better evaluate the argument weneed more evidence that not only the large meteorite collision haven't happenedbut also a volcanic eruption caused the sudden change of weather in the mid-sixthcentury.
总体来说，我觉得这一篇文章写的已经很不错了，相比于上一篇文章有了许多改进和提高，语言的变化上也得到了丰富，希望继续努力，一起加油吧！:loveliness::victory::handshake

[ 本帖最后由 rt860113 于 2006-12-2 22:23 编辑 ]