Argument47 【米国有米】小组 第六次作业,请猛批

ernest81888UID: 2247639

提纲

开头—让步式开头

错误1： False Dilemma—要么是火山喷发，要么是行星撞击地球。还有其他可能比如原因出自太阳，或者是其他不能被确认的原因

错误2： Appeal to ignorance---即便可以证明是以上两个原因造成，作者提到历史记录没有提到行星碰撞，并不能表明一定不是行星碰撞引发。

错误3： Hasty Generalization---那时亚洲记录了一次火山喷发。并不能说明欧洲，乃至世界上那时火山都在喷发。即便是都有过喷发，那么喷发程度如何，喷发持续的时间如何, 作者都没有提到。

结尾---首尾呼应

In this argument, the arguer claims that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer assumes that the cooling was caused by either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding. Meanwhile, to support of his assumption, the speaker provides Asian historical record of a volcanic eruption at that time. At a first glance, the analysis appears to be plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from at least 3 logical flaws.

At first place, the speaker commits a fallacy of false dilemma in assuming that a volcanic eruption or a great meteorite colliding is resulted in global temperature lower. However, this is none necessarily the case. Perhaps the cooling is caused by solar changeable situation, or perhaps the 6th century is on the process of earth’s formation that temperature change is a normal case. Without the evidences that rule out such possibilities, the conclusion made by author is great groundless.

At second place, even if the cooling in 6th century was caused by the reason the speaker mentioned, and there was record of  a volcanic eruption, it is still unconvincing that it is because of a volcanic eruption that leads to a lower global temperature. Because no extend historical record of meteorite colliding can not prove no it did not happen. It is possible that the ancient people failed to record the colliding but it definitely happened, or it is possible the colliding was recorded but it has been lost by the convulsion of that time. Thus the speaker makes a fallacy of appeal to ignorance let the argument highly suspect.

Last but no least, granted the volcanic eruption definitely happened at that time in Asian, the arguer still does not provides us information about the degree of eruption, and lasting time of eruption ,Admittedly, great eruption might be consistent with a cooling, but a slight eruption could also be neglected. If the Asian volcanic eruption is so small that can never caused the cooling in temperature. The auger’s conclusion based upon it is greatly doubtable.

To sum up, the argument is not well supported. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker would have to render verified evidence that meteorite colliding and a volcanic eruption are only two reasons caused cooling in temperature. Additionally, the arguer provides sufficient evidences that there was no meteorite colliding at that time. It would also be helpful to make a complete investigation about the recorded Asian volcanic eruption to find whether the eruption is the direct reason for 6th century’s lower temperature.

森林116UID: 2272614

不错不错,都是早起的鸟儿有虫吃~~~
要你也进高强组就好了,呵呵

wbavwUID: 2176149

In this argument, the arguer claims that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer assumes that the cooling was caused by either a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding. Meanwhile, to support of his assumption, the speaker provides Asian historical record of a volcanic eruption at that time.（开头基本没有问题，个人觉得这里应该再提一下作者认为是火山喷发造成的）At a first glance, the analysis appears to be plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from at least 3 logical flaws.

At first place, the speaker commits a fallacy of false dilemma in assuming that a volcanic eruption or a great meteorite colliding is resulted in global temperature lower. However, this is none（neither） necessarily the case. Perhaps the cooling is caused by solar changeable situation, or perhaps the 6th century is on the process of earth’s formation that temperature change is a normal case. Without the evidences that rule out such possibilities, the conclusion made by author is great groundless.

At second place, even if the cooling in 6th century was caused by the reason the speaker mentioned（the reason 指的不就是a volcanic eruption 么？既然假设已经成立了后面怎么还质疑？我觉得应该把the reason 改为the two reasons ）, and there was record of  a volcanic eruption, it is still unconvincing that it is because of a volcanic eruption that leads to a lower global temperature. Because no extend historical record of meteorite colliding can not prove no it did not happen（语法错误，改为 it did not happen. )It is possible that the ancient people failed to record the colliding but it definitely happened, or it is possible the colliding was recorded but it has been lost by the convulsion of that time. Thus the speaker makes a fallacy of appeal to ignorance let the argument highly suspect.

Last but no least, granted the volcanic eruption definitely happened at that time in Asian, the arguer still does not provides (去s）us information about the degree of eruption, and lasting time of eruption ,Admittedly, great eruption might be consistent with a cooling, but a slight eruption could also be neglected. If the Asian volcanic eruption is so small that can never caused the cooling in temperature. The auger’s conclusion based upon it is greatly doubtable.（跟提纲有些不同，省略了一层关系，感觉按提纲的思路写应该能更充实一些）

To sum up, the argument is not well supported. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker would have to render verified evidence that meteorite colliding and a volcanic eruption are only two reasons caused cooling in temperature. Additionally, the arguer （should）provides sufficient evidences that there was no meteorite colliding at that time. It would also be helpful to make a complete investigation about the recorded Asian volcanic eruption to find whether the eruption is the direct reason for 6th century’s lower temperature.

明显感觉条理清晰，各段的内部结构也比较完整，阐述的很清楚比上次有进步，有个别错误已经标出。

a za a za fighting!