Argument47 【CSMY作文互改第三小组】第五次作业，求拍

lonixUID: 2202232

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.

(1). 没有足够的信息来排除彗星撞击地球的可能性，可能只是由于时间短暂没有被观测到。
(2). 也没有足够的信息来证明火山爆发会导致气候变冷。
(3). 其他因素，作者使用亚洲和非洲的调查来表述全球气候是不对的，作者没有考虑其他导致地球变冷的因素。

WORDS: 402 (381modified)          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-17


Based on litter information recorded in Asia and Europe and by simply ruling out one of the two possible causes which result in the temperature dropping, the arguer concludes that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. This conclusion seems sound at the first glance, but careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First, the arguer unjustifiably assumes that the cooling is attributable to a volcanic eruption because there is no evidence about the short flash light of meteorite collision recorded in Asia or Europe. However, the arguer obviously overlooks the facts that piece information cannot be enough to explain the occurrence. It is entirely possible that the recorded information or evidence have been lost in the river of history. Perhaps the man who recorded this occurrence accidentally only caved down the loud boom and didn’t know how to record the light. Under such circumstance, the cooling would be very possibly responsible for the meteorite collision. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible scenarios, the arguer would hardly persuade me that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption.

Moreover, the arguer provides little information about the reason why the volcanic eruption can result in the cooling. If the arguer doesn’t explain why and how the volcanic eruption affected the climate, I would prefer to believe that the real reason of cooling would be attributable to heavy dust cloud created by the meteorite collision. If this is the case, the conclusion that the cooling caused by the volcanic eruption would undoubtedly leads to be abortive.
   
Finally, even assuming that the volcanic eruption actually caused the cooling and the possibility of meteorite collision has been ruled out, the records founded in Asia are still not enough to represent the utmost cause that influenced the global climate change. It is possible that other factors such as flooding or dioxide carbon releasing as a main reason rather than the volcanic eruption that caused the cooling. For that matter, the impact of volcanic eruption would be smaller when compared with these mentioned above. In this case, the conclusion made by the arguer would seems groundless that it would convince me that we should attribute the reason mainly to the volcanic eruption.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should have to provide more clear evidence that it is the volcanic eruption not other factor that caused the cooling and other alternative reasons should also be taken into account.

[ 本帖最后由 lonix 于 2007-1-17 18:54 编辑 ]