Argument47【CSMY作文互改小组】第四次作业

浮华如烟UID: 113618

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.
研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。

提纲：
1、现存的历史记录和白光的关系
2、火山喷发和巨响的关系
3、作者的论断不周全


At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be quite sound. According to his conclusion, the global cooling process happened in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. But unfortunately, close scrutiny of his evidence and of the line of reasoning reveals that it suffers from several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

To begin with, the causal relationship between the happening of a meteorite colliding with Earth and the absence of correlative records is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support this assumption. To establish this relationship, other factors that could bring about this result must be considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps, such kinds of collisions took place in certain areas like Antarctica where no human being lived around. Or perhaps people had not yet developed the literal-record civilization in that era, consequently, they had no capabilities to note such events even the collisions was really captured by their eyes. Also, it is entirely possible that such kinds of track records were still deeply imbedded under some unknown grounds and therefore have not yet been discovered by archaeologists today. Furthermore, considering the antiquity of the age, records regarding the meteorite collision were probably eroded by certain corresponding chemical reactions or even were demolished without any relic. Thus, without considering and ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot persuade me that there did exist no collision between the meteorite and the earth in the mid-sixth century.

Moreover, the author unjustifiably assumes that the loud boom recorded in certain Asian historical notes is attributable to a volcanic eruption. However, this dubious assumption begs several questions: Firstly, is the fact such loud boom mentioned in records a good indication of the volcanic activities? It is entirely possible that a powerful earthquake or some natural thunders produced such kind of loud sounds. As we know, the epicenter of a earthquake can only be confirmed via modern measure technologies. Likewise, natural thunders happened so quickly that people have no time and ability to observe its happening. As a result, people in that age did not exactly know the origin of such loud boom and thus the genuine reason is validly absent in these records. Secondly, when did such loud boom occur? Without informing us the precise time the boom occurred, it is highly possible that the temperature was declined before the loud sound occurred. If this is the case, we have sufficient reasons to believe that the loud boom had no relativity with the volcanic eruption at all. It is equally possible that such boom is due to certain geothermic aberrations rather than the volcanic action.

Finally, the author's claim is based on the assumption that no alternative explanations of such phenomenon are available. However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. For instance, perhaps other scenarios such as the lacking content of some energy-keeping gas like CO2 and ozone in the air, the inactivity status of the sun, or even the deforestation rather than the dust cloud throughout the atmosphere would be more compelling. Without considering and eliminating these and other possibilities, it is difficult to assess the reliability of the author's conclusion that the volcanic eruption provides the optimal selection to explain the low temperature in that age.

In summary, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to present more evidence that the loud boom was really resulted from the volcano and such activity did cause the dust cloud throughout the whole atmosphere above the earth. Furthermore, to better evaluate the decision, we would need more information regarding the effect of such dust cloud to the earth.

staroceanUID: 2271193

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be quite sound. According to his conclusion, the global cooling process happened in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. But unfortunately, close scrutiny of his evidence and of the line of reasoning reveals that it suffers from several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

To begin with, the causal relationship between the happening of a meteorite colliding with Earth and the absence of correlative records is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support this assumption. To establish this relationship, other factors that could bring about this result must be considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps, such kinds of collisions took place in certain areas like Antarctica where no human being lived around. Or perhaps people had not yet developed the literal-record civilization in that era, consequently, they had no capabilities to note such events even the collisions was really captured by their eyes. Also, it is entirely possible that such kinds of track records were still deeply imbedded under some unknown grounds and therefore have not yet been discovered by archaeologists today. Furthermore, considering the antiquity of the age, records regarding the meteorite collision were probably eroded by certain corresponding chemical reactions or even were demolished without any relic. Thus, without considering and ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot persuade me that there did exist no collision between the meteorite and the earth in the mid-sixth century.

Moreover, the author unjustifiably assumes that the loud boom recorded in certain Asian historical notes is attributable to a volcanic eruption. However, this dubious assumption begs several questions: Firstly, is the fact such loud boom mentioned in records a good indication of the volcanic activities? It is entirely possible that a powerful earthquake or some natural thunders produced such kind of loud sounds. As we know, the epicenter of a earthquake can only be confirmed via modern measure technologies. Likewise, natural thunders happened so quickly that people have no time and ability to observe its happening. As a result, people in that age did not exactly know the origin of such loud boom and thus the genuine reason is validly absent in these records. Secondly, when did such loud boom occur? Without informing us the precise time the boom occurred, it is highly possible that the temperature was declined before the loud sound occurred. If this is the case, we have sufficient reasons to believe that the loud boom had no relativity with the volcanic eruption at all. It is equally possible that such boom is due to certain geothermic aberrations rather than the volcanic action.（恩，觉得除了是不是真的发生了火山喷发，还可以写写就算发生了，以不一定足以导致全球变冷，没说该喷发的程度等等。）

Finally, the author's claim is based on the assumption that no alternative explanations of such phenomenon are available. However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. For instance, perhaps other scenarios such as the lacking content of some energy-keeping gas like CO2 and ozone in the air, the inactivity status of the sun, or even the deforestation rather than the dust cloud throughout the atmosphere would be more compelling. Without considering and eliminating these and other possibilities, it is difficult to assess the reliability of the author's conclusion that the volcanic eruption provides the optimal selection to explain the low temperature in that age.

In summary, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to present more evidence that the loud boom was really resulted from the volcano and such activity did cause the dust cloud throughout the whole atmosphere above the earth. Furthermore, to better evaluate the decision, we would need more information regarding the effect of such dust cloud to the earth.
这个没什么问题哦，赞一个

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-25 15:38 编辑 ]