Argument47 From 荧惑

荧惑UID: 2280559

格式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 author claims that the significantly cooling in the mid-sixth century was likely caused by a volcanic eruption. To support the argument, the arguer cited that the accounts record a dimming of the sun and especially cold temperatures may be caused by a volcanic and eruption or a large meteorite collision Additionally, the author reasons it could not to be a collision since there are no extant historical records of that time mention a sudden bright flash of light The argument appeals to be somehow appealing, but a close examination will reveal how groundless it is.

First, there are no evidence prove that a volcanic eruption may happen due to a loud boom mentioned in Asian historical records. The loud boom can be consistent with many natural disasters. For example, an earth quake, a landslide, even a large meteorite collision may cause a large noise as well. The author rudely ignores others alternative events. Besides, the place where unearth these records may have no volcanics around it. In this case, the sound was highly possibly caused by a large meteorite, rather than a volcanic eruption. So the records take no effect on support the conclusion.

Second, the argument turns on the assumption that the cooling was not caused by a meteorite collision because there no records of the time mention a light consistent with the collision. However, the collision may happen, but the eyewitness fails to record it or even all the eyewitness died by the collision. In another case, the record mentioned the collision may be damaged during a war in the past time. For all these reason, there are no extant historical records of that time mention the sudden bright flash of light, which do not indicate there was no collision in this time. The author fails to consider such possibility.

Finally, even if both of two assumptions above can be proved, the author assumes that volcanic eruption and meteorite collision are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author is presenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between the two events. For example, the sun itself actived in a low level in these years and provided much less energy than usual, which resulted in both a dimming of the sun and an extremely old temperature. But unfortunately, the author provides no evidence to conclude other alternative chooses.

In sum, the author fails to validate the conclusion that the cooling in mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should prove that there were no other alternative possibilities which may result in such disaster. Further, I would like to have a strong evidence to support a volcanic eruption real happened that time.



[ 本帖最后由 荧惑 于 2007-3-15 18:41 编辑 ]

荧惑UID: 2280559

没人拍，就自己拍，加了一个body的修改版
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this argument, the author claims that the significantly cooling in the mid-sixth century was likely caused by a volcanic eruption. To support the argument, the arguer cited that the accounts record a dimming of the sun and especially cold temperatures may be caused by a volcanic and eruption or a large meteorite collision Additionally, the author reasons it could not to be a collision since there are no extant historical records of that time mention a sudden bright flash of light The argument appeals to be somehow appealing, but a close examination will reveal how groundless it is.

First, there no evidence to prove that the cooling happened in mid-sixth century is due to the dimming of the sun at that time. There are many factors may result in extremely cold temperatures. For example, weather diasters as anti-ELNINO, which may also cause the gobel temperature lower than average, are alternative reasons to explain the extremely old temperatures. Obviously, in this case, the dimming of the sun takes no effect on the natural diaster.

Second, there are no evidence prove that a volcanic eruption may happen only by mentioned  a loud boom in Asian historical records. A loud boom can be consistent with many natural disasters. For example, an earth quake, a landslide, even a large meteorite collision may cause a large noise as well. The author rudely ignores others alternative events. Besides, the place where unearth these records have no volcanic around it. In this case, the sound was highly possibly caused by a large meteorite, rather than a volcanic eruption. So the records take no effect on support the conclusion.

Third, the argument turns on the assumption that the cooling was not caused by a meteorite collision because there no records of the time mention a light consistent with the collision. However, the collision may happen, but the eyewitness fails to record it or even all the eyewitness died by the collision. In another case, the record mentioned the collision may be damaged during a war in the past time. For all these reason, there are no extant historical records of that time mention the sudden bright flash of light, which do not indicate there was no collision in this time. The author fails to consider such possibility.

Finally, even if both of two assumptions above can be proved, the author assumes that volcanic eruption and meteorite collision are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author is presenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between the two events. For example, the sun itself actived in a low level in these years and provided much less energy than usual, which resulted in both a dimming of the sun and an extremely old temperature. But unfortunately, the author provides no evidence to conclude other alternative chooses.

In sum, the author fails to validate the conclusion that the cooling in mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should prove that there were no other alternative possibilities which may result in such disaster. Further, I would like to have a strong evidence to support a volcanic eruption real happened that time.

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

In this argument, the author claims that the significantly cooling in the mid-sixth century was likely caused by a volcanic eruption. To support the argument, the arguer cited that the accounts record a dimming of the sun and especially cold temperatures may be caused by a volcanic and eruption or a large meteorite collision Additionally, the author reasons it could not to be a collision since there are no extant historical records of that time mention a sudden bright flash of light The argument appeals to be somehow appealing, but a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. 开头…..算了，看lz的id很眼熟了，自己考虑吧

First, there no evidence to prove that the cooling happened in mid-sixth century is due to the dimming of the sun at that time. There are many factors may result in extremely cold temperatures. For example, weather diasters as anti-ELNINO, which may also cause the gobel temperature lower than average, are alternative reasons to explain the extremely old temperatures他因单薄了点. Obviously, in this case, the dimming of the sun takes no effect on the natural diaster. 个人意见，凡是找到的攻击点都要充分攻击，即使没找全

Second, there are no evidence prove that a volcanic eruption may happen only by mentioned  a loud boom in Asian historical records. A loud boom can be consistent with many natural disasters. For example, an earth quake, a landslide, even a large meteorite collision may cause a large noise as well. The author rudely ignores others alternative events. Besides, the place where unearth these records have no volcanic around it. In this case, the sound was highly possibly caused by a large meteorite, rather than a volcanic eruption. So the records take no effect on support the conclusion. 这两点觉得应该倒过来，lz以为呢？

Third, the argument turns on the assumption that the cooling was not caused by a meteorite collision because there no records of the time mention a light consistent with the collision. However, the collision may happen, but the eyewitness fails to record it or even all the eyewitness died by the collision.晕，lz真狠亚 In another case, the record mentioned the collision may be damaged during a war in the past time. For all these reason, there are no extant historical records of that time mention the sudden bright flash of light, which do not indicate there was no collision in this time. The author fails to consider such possibility. 说实话，长了些，个人觉得凑字数的方法是不可取的，其实我也一样

Finally, even if both of two assumptions above can be proved, the author assumes that volcanic eruption and meteorite collision are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author is presenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between the two events.不大懂，二中选一值得攻击么？从没这么做过…… For example, the sun itself actived in a low level in these years and provided much less energy than usual, which resulted in both a dimming of the sun and an extremely old temperature. But unfortunately, the author provides no evidence to conclude other alternative chooses.果然，还是转到他因来了，了解

In sum, the author fails to validate the conclusion that the cooling in mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should prove that there were no other alternative possibilities which may result in such disaster. Further, I would like to have a strong evidence to support a volcanic eruption real happened that time.确实不错了，如果是限时完成的，那就先恭喜下哈

荧惑UID: 2280559

LS的说的都很在点,谢谢了~
这篇没有限时,我想再练一段再限~