Argument47 [Chasing For '6' Score 小组] 第十次作业

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

题目：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.

In this argument , the arguer concludes that volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century result in  the cooling all over the world. To bolster this conclusion, the arguer cites some historical records and make a series of assumption followed records.  This argument suffers from some logical flaws, which renders it unpersuasive as it stands.


First and foremost, the argument is weaken for the arguer treat the correlative relationship between  a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures as causation. However, it is not necessarily the case. From the argument , we can not know when these two phenomena occurred. It is highly possible that the cooling occurred before the dimming of the sun. Or perhaps, two phenomena occurred at the same time. Maybe it is just a coincidence. Even if the dimming of the sun the cooling, the arguer may overlook other possibilities. It might be the case that the sun was far from the earth during that time , which cause the earth gained no enough energy from the sun. Any of these scenarios, if true , would serve to undermine the rationality of the argument.

In addition. even if i concede that  the dimming of the sun cause decreasing of temperature in the med-sixth century, it is untenable to assume that meteorite collision did not happen at that time, according to limited historical records. It is entirely possible that people who witness such bright flash of light can not write. Then such a flash had not been recorded. Or perhaps those historical records about that flash were ruined. Besides, it is equally possible that historian can not find any relevant records, though such records still exists.  Until the arguer accounts for these two possibilities, i can not be persuade that the cooling was irrelative with a large meteorite collision.

Finally,  the arguer takes it for granted that a volcanic eruption leaded to the dimming of the sun, which could not absolutely convince me. First, no evidence is offered to lend strong support that  a loud boom written in some historical records stem from a volcanic eruption. It is possible that  such a loud boom due to a hurricane or a thunder. Even if i concede foregoing assumption, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion that volcanic eruption cause the dimming of the sun. According to the  existed records, we just conclude that volcanic eruption occurred in Asian during at time. However, the arguer provide no evidence to support that the eruption occurred in  Europe  too. In conclusion, without ruling out every factors attributable to the dimming, the conclusion is completely unwarranted.

To sum up, lacking enough evidence and reasonable analysis, the arguer's conclusion is not convincing. To make his suggestion more attractive, the arguer need to take further study to prove it feasible and effective.

weleeqianUID: 2286332

In this argument , the arguer concludes that volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century result in  the cooling all over the world. To bolster this conclusion, the arguer cites some historical records and make a series of assumption followed records(可以考虑不要了) . This argument suffers from some logical flaws, which renders it unpersuasive as it stands.
发现你的开头已经很有风格了，都是那么的简练清晰。赞一记！


First and foremost, the argument is weakened for (如果是for引导的原因从句的话，前面应该是逗号吧) the arguer treat the correlative relationship between a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures应该是单数 as causation. However, it is not necessarily the case. From the argument , we can not know when these two phenomena occurred. It is highly possible that the cooling occurred before the dimming of the sun. Or perhaps, these two phenomena occurred at the same time. Maybe it is just a coincidence.（这句话改称上一句的定语从句which is just a coincidence） Even if the dimming of the sun the cooling, ????? the arguer may overlook other possibilities. It might be the case that the sun was far from the earth during that time, which cause the earth gained no enough energy from the sun. Any of these scenarios, if true , would serve to undermine the rationality of the argument.

In addition. even if i concede that  the dimming of the sun cause decreasing of temperature in the mid-sixth century, it is untenable to assume that meteorite collision did not happen at that time, according to limited historical records. It is entirely possible that people who witnessed such bright flash of light can not (were unable to) write. Then such a flash had not been recorded. Or perhaps those historical records about that flash were ruined. Besides, it is equally possible that historian can not find any relevant records, though such records still exists.  Until the arguer accounts for these two possibilities, i can not be persuade that the cooling was irrelative with a large meteorite collision.
这种证据找没找到之类的ARGU挺多的，觉得可以精炼一下，形成模版。

Finally,  the arguer takes it for granted that a volcanic eruption leaded to the dimming of the sun, which could not absolutely convince me. First, no evidence is offered to lend strong support that  a loud boom written in some historical records stem from a volcanic eruption. It is possible that  such a loud boom due to (was caused by) a hurricane or a thunder. Even if i concede the foregoing assumption, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion that volcanic eruption cause the dimming of the sun. According to the  existed records, we just conclude that volcanic eruption occurred in Asian during at time. However, the arguer provide no evidence to support that the eruption occurred in  Europe  too. In conclusion, without ruling out every factors attributable to the dimming, the conclusion is completely unwarranted.

To sum up, lacking enough evidence and reasonable analysis, the arguer's conclusion is not convincing. To make his suggestion more attractive, the arguer need to take further study to prove it feasible and effective.

这篇ARGU还有一个致命伤是false dilemma，楼主你没有指出来

anyhow挺喜欢你的行文风格的，打算向你靠拢！！:loveliness: 特别是开头结尾还有主题句

粗的黑字是我喜欢的句子和词汇，不要放在心上

[ 本帖最后由 weleeqian 于 2007-3-14 00:43 编辑 ]

荧惑UID: 2280559

In this argument , the arguer concludes that volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century result in  the cooling all over the world. To bolster this conclusion, the arguer cites some historical records and make a series of assumption followed records.  This argument suffers from some logical flaws, which renders it unpersuasive as it stands.


First and foremost, the argument is weaken for the arguer treat the correlative relationship between  a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures as causation. However, it is not necessarily the case. From the argument , we can not know when these two phenomena occurred. It is highly possible that the cooling occurred before the dimming of the sun. Or perhaps, two phenomena occurred at the same time. Maybe it is just a coincidence. Even if the dimming of the sun the cooling, the arguer may overlook other possibilities. It might be the case that the sun was far from the earth during that time , which cause the earth gained no enough energy from the sun. Any of these scenarios, if true , would serve to undermine the rationality of the argument.

In addition. even if i concede that  the dimming of the sun cause decreasing of temperature in the med-sixth century, it is untenable to assume that meteorite collision did not happen at that time, according to limited historical records. It is entirely possible that people who witness such bright flash of light can not write. Then such a flash had not been recorded. Or perhaps those historical records about that flash were ruined. Besides, it is equally possible that historian can not find any relevant records, though such records still exists.  Until the arguer accounts for these two possibilities, i can not be persuade that the cooling was irrelative with a large meteorite collision.

Finally,  the arguer takes it for granted that a volcanic eruption leaded to the dimming of the sun, which could not absolutely convince me. First, no evidence is offered to lend strong support that  a loud boom written in some historical records stem from a volcanic eruption. It is possible that  such a loud boom due to a hurricane or a thunder. Even if i concede foregoing assumption, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion that volcanic eruption cause the dimming of the sun. According to the  existed records, we just conclude that volcanic eruption occurred in Asian during at time. However, the arguer provide no evidence to support that the eruption occurred in  Europe  too. In conclusion, without ruling out every factors attributable to the dimming, the conclusion is completely unwarranted.

To sum up, lacking enough evidence and reasonable analysis, the arguer's conclusion is not convincing. To make his suggestion more attractive, the arguer need to take further study to prove it feasible and effective.

--第一个body的攻击力很强，学习～
　语言上没有明显的漏洞。
　其实你已经有False dilemma了，把它分成两段，４个攻击点是不是会更有力
ps.
　没什么大改的，也就不涂涂画画的了，向ＬＺ学习～