|
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.The argument concludes that it is likely that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. To support the conclusion, the author presents the evidence that the evident cooling could resulted from a great volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision, and that there is no record about the collision. Thus（这个地方用转折的词，however）, the argument relies on some dubious evidences（单数！！） and doubt（doubtful） assumptions. The argument, therefore, is unconvincing in some critical aspects(不错).
First of all, the assumption that the cause of the cooling only could be a volcanic eruption or a huge meteorite seems logical but still could not be interpreted（这个词用在这里什么意思？）. Yet, it is possible that there are other possibilities to make the earth cooler, such as the weather on earth（这个不要写了吧，ETS该问你weather怎么变的了...）, certain phenomena between the sun and the earth, some changes in the core of the earth（这都能想到，强！）, and so forth. If the argument cannot rule out possibilities above, the author's conclusion remains unfounded.
The author unfairly assumes that the few survived historical records about the sun and temperatures in Asia and Europe are acceptable（怪异的说...换个句型，the records in A and E can be extend to the whold world要是我就这么写你想想？） for all over the world. Perhaps, the temperatures changed greatly only in Asia and Europe while the other places of the earth have not changed significantly（这怎么可能啊...不过一切皆有可能）. Moreover, the author fails to demonstrate any evidence about the reliability of the records. Whether the records are true or not, thus, is not sure for us.
The argument fails to take into consideration the possibility that the collision indeed happened though there is no survival record. It is the meteorite collision that, as the case may be, kills people who had seen the collision. Or perhaps, there were once records which were relevant to the collision, but the records about the collision had been burned up under some circumstances（直接说毁了就行了吧，不用那么具体，可能还是被水泡了呢是吧）. Therefore, we cannot accept the author's assumption that the volcanic eruption is the only reason for the cooling.
To sum up, the argument is indeed logical unsound with the existing evidences. To better assess it, I prefer to（这个词是不是弱了点） know: (1) whether the records about the eruption is correct; (2) whether the collision took place or not in the mid-six century（这个假设你前面有写么？）. To strongly strengthen it, the author must provide clear evidence that there are no other reasons for the cooling of earth besides the eruption and the collision.
1 地球变冷既不是行星撞的也不是火山喷的
2 可能亚洲欧洲变得巨冷别的地方没变化
3 没有发现证据不代表从来没有证据
这是你的思路对吧，但是还有很重要的一个你没有拎出来批，就是那声巨响，这声巨响可能是来自撞击而恰好人们没看见闪光。我认为你的第2个理由有点强词夺理，可以适当换一下
[ 本帖最后由 ASKFORTROUBLE 于 2007-2-28 23:26 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2007-2-27 23:32:21
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
