Argument47【天下无G askme习作】第14次作业 请教语言方面问题

askmeUID: 2264776

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.
WORDS: 525          TIME: 0:29:39          DATE: 2007-2-19

Giving some facts and analysis, the argument that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption seems logical. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite collision with Earth are mutually exclusive alternatives that are responsible for cooling. However, this is not necessarily the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Perhaps, the structure underground has changed before cooling. For example, if more rock had been melt down, a quantity of heat would have been absorbed and the temperature would naturally have diminished. What is more, had the chemical react in sun slowed down, the energy from sun would have slumped certainly. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer cannot draw any firm conclusion.

Furthermore, even if there are not other factors, aside from the two, which the arguer asserted, that contributed to cooling, the arguer falsely equates no record of the flash with its never happening. However, there is no guarantee of this assumption. As common sense tells us that if a flash, even a glaring one, is far away or covered by obstacle, we might hardly observe it. Under this circumstance, when most of civilization existed in Asia and Europe, any flash caused by a large meteorite collision but happening in Antarctic, where is distant and deserted, could not be observed anyway. Moreover, only relying on the fact that the record of the flash has not been found nowadays, we cannot draw such a conclusion that the record does not exist for the reason that it might be buried quit deep underground. Without considering these possibilities, the conclusion is unconvincing.

What's more, the conclusion unfairly rests on the assumption that a loud boom is representative of a volcanic eruption. However, a variety of other factors might be responsible for this loud boom. Such alternatives might include earthquake, or drums in a war. It is possible that a fierce earthquake breaking out far away sounded like a loud boom from a volcanic eruption. In addition, as we know, there were lots of wars in ancient time, so when thousands of soldiers striking the drums, people, who recorded, might regard the orotund sound as a loud boom and write about it. In all, any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion.

Finally, even if we can equate this record with the volcanic eruption, the mere fact that the volcanic eruption occurred before cooling does not establish a causal and positive relationship between the two matters. It is highly possible that before the volcanic eruption, cooling had been undergoing for a long time, and incidentally became conspicuous after the volcanic eruption. Thus, lacking such evidence, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the volcanic eruption necessarily resulted in cooling.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited here lends no strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the historical records. To better evaluate this argument, we need more information about the causes and principles of cooling.

[ 本帖最后由 askme 于 2007-2-19 23:21 编辑 ]

jacanaUID: 2292520

Giving some facts and analysis, the argument that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption seems logical. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite collision with Earth are mutually exclusive alternatives that are responsible for cooling. However, this is not necessarily the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Perhaps, the structure underground has changed before cooling. For example, if more rock had been melt down, a quantity of heat would have been absorbed and the temperature(heat) would naturally have diminished. What is more, had the chemical react in sun slowed down, the energy from sun would have slumped certainly. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer cannot draw any firm conclusion.

Furthermore, even if there are not （no）other factors, aside from the two, which the arguer asserted, that contributed to cooling, the arguer falsely equates no record of the flash with its never happening. However, there is no guarantee of this assumption. As common sense tells us that if a flash, even a glaring one, is far away or covered by obstacle, we might hardly observe it. Under this circumstance, when most of civilization existed in Asia and Europe, any flash caused by a large meteorite collision but happening in Antarctic, where is distant and deserted, could not be observed anyway. Moreover, only relying on the fact that the record of the flash has not been found nowadays, we cannot draw such a conclusion that the record does not exist for the reason that it might be buried quit deep underground. Without considering these possibilities, the conclusion is unconvincing.
这段论证的很好啊，我要学一学~~

What's more, the conclusion unfairly rests on（unfairly 修饰rest不太合适吧） the assumption that a loud boom is representative of a volcanic eruption. However, a variety of other factors might be responsible for this loud boom. Such alternatives might include earthquake, or drums in a war. It is possible that a fierce earthquake breaking out far away sounded like a loud boom from a volcanic eruption. In addition, as we know, there were lots of wars in ancient time, so when thousands of soldiers striking the drums, people, who recorded, might regard the orotund sound as a loud boom and write about it. In all, any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion.

Finally, even if we can equate this record with the volcanic eruption, the mere fact that the volcanic eruption occurred before cooling does not establish a causal and positive relationship between the two matters. It is highly possible that before the volcanic eruption, cooling had been undergoing for a long time, and incidentally became conspicuous after the volcanic eruption. Thus, lacking such evidence, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the volcanic eruption necessarily resulted in cooling.
这么重要的因果错误我居然没发现……faint

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited here lends no strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the historical records. To better evaluate this argument, we need more information about the causes and principles of cooling.

你的逻辑比我那篇顺多了，感觉你argu已经很稳定了，保持吧嗯~~