Argument47 rt860113--Hamming小组

rt860113UID: 2256886

TOPIC: ARGUMENT47 - Scientists studyinghistorical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century,Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical recordssurvive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention adimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcaniceruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a largedust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable ofblocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A largemeteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash oflight, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Somesurviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boomthat would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling wasprobably caused by a volcanic eruption.（今天感冒发烧，拉肚加口腔溃疡，我快不行了:(，好不容易写完这篇文章，健康第一！）
WORDS: 408          TIME: 0:54:41         DATE: 2006-12-1
中文提纲：
1．  引起气温下降的原因可能不止科学家所列举的两种。
2．  记录的缺失和有限性可能导致得到的信息不完全，从而导致判断上的失误。

In the argument, it is said that, in the mid-sixth century, the earth suddenly became significantly cooler. The scientists maintain that the most possible reason is a volcanic eruption, bringing a loud boom, rather a large meteorite collision, creating a sudden brightflash of light. To support the conclusion, scientists presented some accounts found both in Asia and Europe from the mid-sixth century, that mentioned therewas a loud boom but not a flash of light. As it stands, the cooling waspossibly caused by a volcanic eruption. This argument is unconvincing for two critical flaws.

Firstly, there are a great deal of causes which may make the earth cooler. The two causes, which are the volcanic eruption and the meteorite collision, scientists mentioned are limited in away. Other causes may exist. For instance, if a sizeable comet which bumped the earth in an unmanned area during the mid-sixth century without any record, can also make phenomena of a dimming sun and a cool earth.

In the second place, we can assume that the two causes mentioned above are the only ones that would result in the decrease of temperature in the certain time. Even under this circumstance, the accounts from Asia and Europe cannot explain the phenomena of the sun dimming and earth cooling. At first, as we know, the accounts are from the ancient. During such a long period of time, a considerable number of them might be lost. In that case,the possibility of the lost accounts, which recorded the flash of light, isexisted. Secondly, it is unconvincing to say that there is no flash of light due to the accounts. It is a common sense that Asia and Europe are located in the North Hemisphere. If the meteorite collision happened in the SouthHemisphere, it would be impossible for the people in the north to see the flash of light. So were the accounts. Finally, the boom is the phenomenon companied by not only the volcanic eruption but also the meteorite collision. Therefore,the boom mentioned by the accounts is not the compellent support to demonstratethe cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption.

To sum up, the conclusion that scientists made is groundless after a careful analysis, because the evidence cited in theargument cannot support what the scientists maintain. To strengthen the argument, scientists should give some more demonstration to prove the coolingis caused by the volcanic eruption only.

[ 本帖最后由 rt860113 于 2006-12-1 17:15 编辑 ]

graduate06UID: 2223299

这次是我和你互改，我把你的文章复制到我的机器上，改过后，我会用不同颜色标示我改的部分。:handshake
也给我的文章多扔两块砖啊:) :handshake

结构方面的问题：

正文部分，段落长度不要相差太大，三段式较好。另外，你的逻辑漏洞分析的不是很准确，建议看看各类典型逻辑漏洞总结。https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=562265&extra=page%3D1

多看例文吧，你的论证语言还不很规范。

In the argument, it is said that, in the mid-sixth century, the earth suddenly became significantly意味深长地, 值得注目地cooler. The scientists maintain that the most possible reason is a volcanic eruption, bringing a loud boom, rather a large meteorite collision, creating a sudden brightflash of light.To support the conclusion, scientists presented some accounts found both in Asia and Europe from the mid-sixth century, that（非限制性定语从句不能用that，改which） mentioned there was a loud boom but not a flash of light.  As it stands, the cooling was possibly caused by a volcanic eruption. This argument is unconvincing for two critical flaws.

Firstly, there are a great deal of causes which might lead to the cooling . The two causes, which are the volcanic eruption and the meteorite collision, scientists mentioned are limited in away??. Other causes may exist. Perhaps,  if a sizeable comet (which bumped the earth in an unmanned area during the mid-sixth century without any record)除了这个定语从句这个条件句就剩主语了, can also make phenomena of a dimming sun and a cool earth. 这句再斟酌

In the second place, we can assume that the two causes mentioned above are the only ones that would result in the decrease of temperature in the certain time. Even if under this circumstance, the accounts from Asia and Europe cannot explain the phenomena of the sun dimming and earth cooling. 语义不通 At first, as we know, the accounts are from the ancient. During such a long period of time, a considerable number of them might be lost. In that case, the possibility of the lost accounts, which recorded the flash of light, is existed. Secondly, it is unconvincing to say that there is no flash of light due to the accounts. It is a common sense that Asia and Europe are located in the North Hemisphere. It is entirely possible that the meteorite collision happened in the South Hemisphere, it would be impossible for the people in the north to see the flash of light. So were the accounts??. Finally, the boom is the phenomenon companied by not only the volcanic eruption but also the meteorite collision. Therefore, the boom mentioned by the accounts is not the compellent support to demonstrate the cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption.
关于结尾，为什么不用几个漂亮的模板呢？？可以综合多个模板啊。
To sum up, the conclusion that scientists made is groundless after a careful analysis, because the evidence cited in the argument cannot support what the scientists maintain. To strengthen the argument, scientists should give some more demonstration to prove the cooling is caused by the volcanic eruption only.

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2006-12-2 00:20 编辑 ]

hugo010311UID: 2237388

恩，谢谢啦，昨天一直发烧，真不好意思:(
今天一定补上！:) :handshake