Argument47 【Persistence 小组】终于赶上进度，上帝保佑，请狠狠的批吧！

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

47. 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 argument, the author draws a conclusion that the cooling of Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a
volcanic eruption. To support the conclusion, the author points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite
colliding with Earth has the capability to lower global temperatures significantly. The author also cites that no extant
historical records of the time mention a flash which could be created by a large meteorite collision; meanwhile, some
surviving records mention a loud boom that could be consistent with a volcanic eruption. However, careful scrutiny of the
argument reveals various logical problems, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the author fails to justify that the loud boom mentioned by Asian historical records has been caused by a
volcanic eruption. No evidence support that a loud boom necessarily consist with a volcanic eruption. If the boom mentioned
in the surviving records caused by some unknown natural phenomena, then the existence of that volcanic eruption is doubtable.
Therefore, the conclusion is base on an unjustified root.

Secondly, even if the huge volcanic eruption has occurred, no evidence indicates that the extremely cooling of Earth happened
after the eruption. Perhaps the extremely cold temperatures of Earth appeared before the eruption, and then the cooling has
nothing to do with the volcanic eruption.

Thirdly, that no extant historical records mention a flash doesn't mean there was no such a flash at that time. As we all
know, it is very difficult for us to find integrated historical records, for these records easily be destroyed through the
long geologic time. For that matter, the existence of a large meteorite collision which would create a bright flash of light
cannot be excluded.

Furthermore, even if that the meteorite collision being the reason of the cooling can be excluded, the author concludes
hastily that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. It is entirely possible that some other reason, such as the lower
activity of the sun, can cause the cooling. Without excluding this possibility, it is hard for the author to convince me.

In sum, the conclusion drawn by the author is unsubstantiated as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, we need more evidence
about whether there was a huge volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century and more detailed information about the eruption.
We still need further study of whether there are some other phenomena that can cause the extreme decrease of temperature.

worenleflyUID: 2270315

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that the cooling of Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a
volcanic eruption. To support the conclusion, the author points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite
colliding with Earth has the capability to lower global temperatures significantly. The author also cites that no extant
historical records of the time mention a flash which could be created by a large meteorite collision; meanwhile, some
surviving records mention a loud boom that could be consistent with a volcanic eruption. However, careful scrutiny of the
argument reveals various logical problems, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the author fails to justify that the loud boom mentioned by Asian historical records has been caused by a
volcanic eruption. No evidence support that a loud boom necessarily consist with a volcanic eruption. If the boom mentioned
in the surviving records caused by some unknown natural phenomena, then the existence of that volcanic eruption is doubtable.
Therefore, the conclusion is base on an unjustified root.

Secondly, even if the huge volcanic eruption has occurred, no evidence indicates that the extremely cooling of Earth happened
after the eruption. Perhaps the extremely cold temperatures of Earth appeared before the eruption, and then the cooling has
nothing to do with the volcanic eruption.

Thirdly, that no extant historical records mention a flash doesn't mean there was no such a flash at that time. As we all
know, it is very difficult for us to find integrated historical records, for these records easily be destroyed through the
long geologic time. For that matter, the existence of a large meteorite collision which would create a bright flash of light
cannot be excluded.

Furthermore, even if that the meteorite collision being the reason of the cooling can be excluded, the author concludes
hastily that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. It is entirely possible that some other reason, such as the lower
activity of the sun, can cause the cooling. Without excluding this possibility, it is hard for the author to convince me.

In sum, the conclusion drawn by the author is unsubstantiated as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, we need more evidence
about whether there was a huge volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century and more detailed information about the eruption.
We still need further study of whether there are some other phenomena that can cause the extreme decrease of temperature.
(文章整体很好，语法不错，攻击点也很正确，唯一的不足就是正文部分每段的字数稍微少了一点)