argument47 {长征队}请狂拍,必回拍

staroceanUID: 2271193

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.

In this analysis, the arguer concludes that a volcanic eruption caused the earth suddenly cooling in the mid-sixty century. To justify this conclusion the arguer points out that ether a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision may cause the cooling as the accounts in Asia and Europe mentioned. The arguer’s conclusion is also based on the assumption that there was no meteorite collision since no historical records mentioned its sudden flash, and some Asian records shows a loud boom that may be caused by a volcanic eruption. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument, however, is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.

First of all, the major problem with this argument is the unwarranted assumption that there are only two factors can cause the Earth’s sudden cooling, which include the volcanic eruption and the meteorite collision. It is entirely possible that some other incidents can also attribute to create the large dust cloud throughout Earth’s atmosphere than to block sunlight. It is also possible that some other factors contribute to the cooling throughout other ways, which are also create dimming of the sun and cold temperature as the accounts of Asia mentioned. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the cooling, the arguer cannot conclude one is the causer based on the other one is not.

In addition, the arguer falls to lend strong support to the assumption that there was no meteorite collision with the mere evidence that no records of that time mentioned the flash a collision may create. Was the flash perceptible and unusual enough to be put into record? Perhaps, people did not notice this flash or they did not take it seriously to make any record. Moreover, the arguer mentioned that e few records survive from that time, hence there is large probability that the records mentioned that flash were destroyed or lost. In short, the arguer provides litter crucial evidence indicates that no meteorite collision was happened at that time.

Finally, even if only meteorite collision and volcanic eruption can cause Earth’s sudden cooling, and even if no collision happened at that moment, I remain unconvinced to the conclusion that the cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption, substantiated by nothing but a boom mentioned in some Asia’s records. Despite whether the boom is created by a volcanic eruption or not, the arguer provides no information about the eruption’s size, its possible location, its duration, or the dust it created. Lacking enough evidence, it is unwarranted to draw any conclusion relies on a simple boom.

To sum up, the evidence offered in support of the recommendation provides little credible support for it. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more evidences that only meteorite collision and volcanic eruption are able to cause a dimming sun and Earth’s sudden cooling, and reliable evidence that no meteorite collision happened that time. Before I can accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more information concerning the volcanic eruption and the its capacity to cause the sudden Earth’s cooling.

smailingfishUID: 2246243

In this analysis, the arguer concludes that a volcanic eruption caused the earth suddenly cooling in the mid-sixty century. To justify this conclusion the arguer points out that ether a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision may cause the cooling as the accounts in Asia and Europe mentioned.这个地方有一个比较严重的错误：历史纪录里并没有明确纪录有火山爆发或者陨石，lz没看清题目哦 The arguer’s conclusion is also based on the assumption that there was no meteorite collision since no historical records mentioned its sudden flash, and some Asian records shows a loud boom that may be caused by a volcanic eruption. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument, however, is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.

First of all, the major problem with this argument is the unwarranted assumption that there are only two factors can cause the Earth’s sudden cooling, which include the volcanic eruption and the meteorite collision. It is entirely possible that some other incidents can also attribute to create the large dust cloud throughout Earth’s atmosphere /than?/是不是thatcould block sunlight?/ to block sunlight. It is also possible that some other factors contribute to the cooling throughout other ways, which are删/ also create dimming of the sun and cold temperature as the accounts of Asia mentioned. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the cooling, the arguer cannot conclude one is the causer based on the other one is not.

In addition, the arguer falls to lend strong support to the assumption that there was no meteorite collision with the mere evidence that no records of that time mentioned the flash a collision may create. Was the flash perceptible and unusual enough to be put into record? Perhaps, people did not notice this flash or they did not take it seriously to make any record. Moreover, the arguer mentioned that e few records survive from that time, hence there is large probability that the records mentioned that flash were destroyed or lost. In short, the arguer provides litter crucial evidence indicates that no meteorite collision was happened at that time.

Finally, even if only meteorite collision and volcanic eruption can cause Earth’s sudden cooling, and even if no collision happened at that moment, I remain unconvinced to the conclusion that the cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption, substantiated by nothing but a boom mentioned in some Asia’s records. Despite whether the boom is created by a volcanic eruption or not, the arguer provides no information about the eruption’s size, its possible location, its duration, or the dust it created. Lacking enough evidence, it is unwarranted to draw any conclusion relies on a simple boom.还有两点可以攻击，就是如果火山爆发发生在变冷之后呢？从物理学的角度来看，即便是陨石坠落，在坠落过程中由于它与大气的摩擦也会发出很大的声响

To sum up, the evidence offered in support of the recommendation provides little credible support for it. To better evaluate the argument, I/we/ would need more evidences that only meteorite collision and volcanic eruption /which/ are able to cause a dimming sun and Earth’s sudden cooling, and reliable evidence that no meteorite collision happened that time. Before I can accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more information concerning the volcanic eruption and the its capacity to cause the sudden Earth’s cooling.
思路很好，感觉语言好像还有待加强，一起努力吧

staroceanUID: 2271193

谢谢的先
可是我没有说有历史纪录有明确纪录有火山爆发或者陨石阿，我是说，作者指出，要么是火山要么是陨石导致了cooling，鱼是说我什么地方没看清楚呢

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-2 00:03 编辑 ]

piggy2006UID: 2272134

占个位慢慢看。。。
smailingfish 的“即便是陨石坠落，在坠落过程中由于它与大气的摩擦也会发出很大的声响“给我又打开了一点思路。。。呵呵~
^@^~

staroceanUID: 2271193

"Finally, even if only meteorite collision and volcanic eruption can cause Earth’s sudden cooling, and even if no collision happened at that moment, I remain unconvinced to the conclusion that the cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption, substantiated by nothing but a boom mentioned in some Asia’s records. Despite whether the boom is created by a volcanic eruption or not, the arguer provides no information about the eruption’s size, its possible location, its duration, or the dust it created. Lacking enough evidence, it is unwarranted to draw any conclusion relies on a simple boom.还有两点可以攻击，就是如果火山爆发发生在变冷之后呢？从物理学的角度来看，即便是陨石坠落，在坠落过程中由于它与大气的摩擦也会发出很大的声响"

这一段里我用了两个假设：
1，只有两种可能性可以造成colling，而陨石没有发生。所以这里我就不能再说可能是陨石呢
2。不算这个boom是不是火山造成的，所以我也不能说谁先谁后了呢。
我觉得顺着作者的思想，一步一步推理比针对一个错误把作者说死要重要一点 呵呵

不过鱼的建议还是很好的呵呵

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-4 02:17 编辑 ]

smailingfishUID: 2246243

原帖由 starocean 于 2007-1-2 00:01 发表
谢谢的先
可是我没有说有历史纪录有明确纪录有火山爆发或者陨石阿，我是说，作者指出，要么是火山要么是陨石导致了cooling，鱼是说我什么地方没看清楚呢

"To justify this conclusion the arguer points out that ether a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision may cause the cooling as the accounts in Asia and Europe mentioned." 呵呵，我原来以为是红色部分有问题，因为历史纪录里并没有说要么是火山要么是陨石，而只是纪录变冷了。我以为你句子中mentioned的是蓝色部分呢~~  我没看仔细~~~   

不过现在再想想这个mentioned是不是会有指代不明的危险呢？我觉得，这个mention既可以指cooling也可以指前面整个句子，你觉着呢？

staroceanUID: 2271193

嘿嘿 既然你觉得有歧异就是有啊  我改改