argument47 【米国有米－第6次作业】

joochangUID: 2265219

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: 391                    DATE: 2006-12-22
提纲：A. 作者无法证明巨响来自火山暴发
            B. 即使声响来自火山暴发，也无法得出该火山暴发引起气温下降的结论
            C. 无法排除陨石撞击的可能性

The argument above presents a relative sound case for arguing that the cooling in mid-six century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To substantiate this, the arguer asserts that there are only three possibility can cause temperature descend. The arguer cites some surviving Asian historical records which mention a loud boom that consistent with a volcanic eruption. However, a careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers from several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

First of all, the casual relationship between the loud boom and the volcanic eruption is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support the assumption. It is highly possible that the loud boom was caused by other factors, such as a earthquake, a large meteorite collision, and so on. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer could not bolster his conclusion that the loud boom was caused by a volcanic eruption.

In addition, even if the loud boom is caused by a volcanic eruption, the arguer could not prove that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. First, the surviving Asian historical records do not mention what time was the loud boom happen and whether it came to a dimming. No evidence shows that the cooling followed the loud boom. Second, the cooling also occur in Europe, but there is no evidence to show that the boom has something to do with the cooling in Europe.

Finally, it is unjustifiable to claim that a meteorite collision had not happened. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites that no extant historical records mention a flash that created by the meteorite collision. Perhaps the records have already gone. Or perhaps the flash was not bright enough to be seen. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the cooling could not be caused by a meteorite collision.

In sum, this argument has patent flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should rule out other possible factors to cause the cooling. To persuade me that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption, the arguer should make sure the boom is caused by volcanic eruption. Furthermore, to better assess the arguer's claim we would need more information to determine the relationship between the boom and the cooling.

[ 本帖最后由 joochang 于 2006-12-23 00:37 编辑 ]

chronicleUID: 2254484

The argument above presents a relative (relatively) sound case for arguing that the cooling in mid-six century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To substantiate this, the arguer asserts that there are only three possibility can cause temperature descend. The arguer cites some surviving Asian historical records which mention a loud boom that consistent with a volcanic eruption. However, a careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers from several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

First of all, the casual relationship between the loud boom and the volcanic eruption is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support the assumption. It is highly possible that the loud boom was caused by other factors, such as a earthquake, a large meteorite collision, and so on. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer could not bolster his conclusion that the loud boom was caused by a volcanic eruption.

In addition, even if the loud boom is caused by a volcanic eruption, the arguer could not prove that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. First, the surviving Asian historical records do not mention what time was the loud boom happen and whether it came to a dimming. No evidence shows that the cooling followed the loud boom. Second, the cooling also occur in Europe, but there is no evidence to show that the boom has something to do with the cooling in Europe.
再加上一些总结会更好，如这些可能会使论者的观点存在疑点。

Finally, it is unjustifiable to claim that a meteorite collision had not happened. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites that no extant historical records mention a flash that created by the meteorite collision. Perhaps the records have already gone. Or perhaps the flash was not bright enough to be seen. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the cooling could not be caused by a meteorite collision.

In sum, this argument has patent (明显的?,为什么不用obvious,conspicuous,等) flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should rule out other possible factors to cause the cooling. To persuade me that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption, the arguer should make sure the boom is caused by volcanic eruption. Furthermore, to better assess the arguer's claim we would need more information to determine the relationship between the boom and the cooling.

一篇很不错的文章，结构、观点都很清晰，值得借鉴。继续努力啊！