Arguement47【Persistence小组】第10次作业

vinnieUID: 2104933

2.10
A47Scientists 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 地球是否真的变冷
2 地球变暖的原因
3 可能产生的闪光没有出现不代表没出现撞击
In the above argument, author concludes that earth became extremely cold in mid-sixth century from a few records before. After analysis author indicates that the reason to make earth cold is volcanic eruption. It seems quite reasonable at first glance. But after further consideration, I am afraid that this argument is specious and flawed in some critical respects.

First, the conclusion that earth became suddenly cold in mid-six century is quite doubtful as it relies on few historical records. And records just mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in just Asia and Europe. Please pay attention to the records. It didn’t say there was a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in all over the world. The cold temperature only might exist in a part of the world. We didn’t know others just like Africa, America and Australia. It was possible that just Asia and Europe were in cold while others were not. If so the conclusion that earth became suddenly cooler can not stand. On the other hand, there were just few record survived from that time. It is not preciseness that the earth was in cold for such a long time just from few records. If the conclusion that earth became cold can’t stand, there is no need to discuss the reason to cause that.

Second, there are also some flaws in indicating the reasons to make earth cold. In the above argument, author just says that there are only two reasons. One is volcanic eruption, and the other is a large meteorite colliding with earth. Author didn’t say how these two reasons came. After that author indicates that there is only one reason and it seems true obviously through denying the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with earth. Is it possible that there is another reason caused earth’s being cold despite above two? Author didn’t give explain. To make his assumption true; author still needs to provide scientific evidence to prove that there were just two reasons which can cause earth in suddenly cold at that time.

Finally, when author denies the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with earth, it seems unconvincing also. In the argument, author has pointed out that a large meteorite colliding with earth probably created a sudden bright light of flash. It means that colliding probably happened without a sudden bright light of flash. If so, it is not reasonable that colliding didn’t happen just because there was no record about bright flash.  On the other hand, the flash usually happened in a short time and was by accident. It could explain that people didn’t observe it when flash occurred under the scientific level at that time.

In sum, there are a lot of flaws in both assumption and conclusion. To make this argument convincing, author needs to provide more records in mid-six century to prove that earth really was in cold. And author still to provide further evidence to indicate that there were just two reasons which could make earth cold. At last, author needs to deny the possibility of colliding with more complex analysis.

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

In the above argument, author concludes that earth became extremely cold in mid-sixth century from a few records before. After analysis author indicates that the reason to make earth cold is volcanic eruption. It seems quite reasonable at first glance. But after further consideration, I am afraid that this argument is specious and flawed in some critical respects.（关于对这个argument结论的理解，可以再讨论。我的理解是：1）原题目的这句话：Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler.只是一个red herring，或者说，它是作者预先给出的引起讨论而无需证明的前提。而从weather patterns来看，作者后面的论述并不是给出对天气模式的探究过程，而是在论证气候变冷原因的过程。所以，它的大部分论证都和天气模式无关，那么，从这个角度，如果认定“气候变冷”是它的结论，会显得比较牵强，而整个argument都没有意义了。因为整个论述并不集中于这一点。2）个人认为，这个argument的结论是，火山爆发引发了天气变冷。3）如果从你的思路出发，也未尝不可，从你的论证来看，也是严密且符合逻辑的。总之，感觉这个还可以再广泛讨论一下。）

First, the conclusion that earth became suddenly cold in mid-six century is quite doubtful as it relies on few historical records. And records just mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in just Asia and Europe. Please pay attention to the records. It didn’t （个人意见，最好不用缩写）say there was a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in all over the world. The cold temperature only might exist in a part of the world. We didn’t know others just like Africa, America and Australia. It was possible that just Asia and Europe were in cold while others were not. If so the conclusion that earth became suddenly cooler can not stand. On the other hand, there were just few record survived from that time. It is not preciseness that the earth was in cold for such a long time just from few records. If the conclusion that earth became cold can’t stand, there is no need to discuss the reason to cause that.

Second, there are also some flaws in indicating the reasons to make earth cold. In the above argument, author just says that there are only two reasons. One is volcanic eruption, and the other is a large meteorite colliding with earth. Author didn’t say how these two reasons came. After that author （可数名词这么单独用，可以再斟酌。个人感觉，好像得加点儿什么修饰吧？）indicates that there is only one reason and it seems true obviously through denying the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with earth. Is it possible that there is another reason caused earth’s being cold despite above two? Author didn’t give explain. To make his assumption true; author still needs to provide scientific evidence to prove that there were just two reasons which can cause earth in suddenly cold at that time.

Finally, when （这里表示了一个让步，用even if会不会好一点？）author denies the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with earth, it seems unconvincing also. （it still seems unconvincing会不会好一点？）In the argument, author has pointed out that a large meteorite colliding with earth probably created a sudden bright light of flash. It means that colliding probably happened without a sudden bright light of flash. If so, it is not reasonable that colliding didn’t happen just because there was no record about bright flash.  On the other hand, the flash usually happened in a short time and was by accident. It could explain that people didn’t observe it when flash occurred under the scientific level at that time.

In sum, there are a lot of flaws in both assumption and conclusion. To make this argument convincing, author needs to provide more records in mid-six century to prove that earth really was in cold. And author still to provide further evidence to indicate that there were just two reasons which could make earth cold. At last, author needs to deny the possibility of colliding with more complex analysis.

1.       思想性没有问题，有着严密的逻辑结构链。（除了我在首段写的我的一些想法外，这个存在争议，可以再讨论。）
2.       从你的思想出发，论证结构就安排的很严密，先批结论，再批可能的原因。很好！
3.       语言上没有什么问题，除了author的用法，我的感觉是，用the author比较好。
4.  加油！加油！