argument47

PrudenceUID: 2286952

47. 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.
This argument is well-presented, however, suffers from several respects that are questionable. First, the author relies on few records to deduce the conclusion. In addition, the argument also contains two main flaws. I will discuss each of them one by one.

To begin with, only based on few records, it is presumptuous for author to draw any conclusion. Common sense informs us events without records do not prove they did not happen in history. Thus, some accounts mentioned in this argument cannot cover all relevant historical events and fails to be reliable evidence. Even if some accounts can be representative, the mere fact that only some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures fails to be used to deduce that the whole world then is significantly cooler. Just like we cannot deduce that the money is red merely according to its red button. Thus, the author cannot convince me that these few records are reliable, and therefore to prove that in the mid-sixth century the whole Earth suddenly became significantly cooler.

Even if the whole Earth became significantly cooler in history, the cooling cannot be contributable to a volcanic eruption. Obviously, according to mere record which mentionsit would be consistent with a volcanic eruption, the loud boom cannot be substantiated the sound of volcanic eruption. In addition, no record mentions a sudden bright flash of light created by a large meteorite collision does not mean such a flash did not exist. If this is the case, the existence of this collision is possible. Thus, it is entirely possible that the loud boom is the sound of a large meteorite colliding with Earth. Without ruling out this possibility, the author fails to make the conclusion that the cooling of Earth was probably caused by a volcanic eruption persuasive.

Last but not least, the author neglects other possible alternatives happened in history leads to this global cooler. I wonder whether there are some records mention that the sun in the mid-sixth century had something unusual. If so, maybe it is the usual sun itself resulted in the global cooler.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. In order to substantiate it, the author should do further study and provide sufficient evidence to prove his/her conclusion.

eddie23508okUID: 2281260

This argument is well-presented, however, suffers (suffering) from several respects that are questionable. First, the author relies on few records to deduce (好词，学习了) the conclusion. In addition, the argument also contains two main flaws. I will discuss each of them one by one.

To begin with, only based on few records, it is presumptuous for author to draw any conclusion. Common sense informs us events without records do not prove they did not happen in history. Thus, some accounts mentioned in this argument cannot cover all relevant historical events and fails to be reliable evidence. Even if some accounts can be representative, the mere fact that only some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures fails to be used to deduce that the whole world then is significantly cooler. Just like we cannot deduce that the money is red merely according to its red button. Thus, the author cannot convince me that these few records are reliable, and therefore to prove that in the mid-sixth century the whole Earth suddenly became significantly cooler.

Even if the whole Earth became significantly cooler in history, the cooling cannot be contributable (这个词我没查出它的意思耶！！) to a volcanic eruption. Obviously, according to mere record which mentionsit (这个词我也没查出它的意思！！) would be consistent with a volcanic eruption, the loud boom cannot be substantiated the sound of volcanic eruption. (这点可以分析得详细点，比如说巨响不一定是火山喷发引起的，就算是火山引起的，是否就是这次火山爆发引起了气温下降呢？火山喷发的时间是什么呢？是在气温下降之前还是之后呢？) In addition, no record mentions a sudden bright flash of light created by a large meteorite collision does not mean such a flash did not exist. If this is the case, the existence of this collision is possible. Thus, it is entirely possible that the loud boom is the sound of a large meteorite colliding with Earth. (这点也可以分析得深刻点，比如说是否当时全球都看得见这次闪光呢，如果闪光发生在那些还没有文字记录出现的地方，那么非常有可能是陨石撞地球引起的气温下降) Without ruling out this possibility, the author fails to make the conclusion that the cooling of Earth was probably caused by a volcanic eruption persuasive.

Last but not least, the author neglects other possible alternatives happened in history leads to this global cooler. I wonder whether there are some records mention that the sun in the mid-sixth century had something unusual. If so, maybe it is the usual sun itself resulted in the global cooler.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. In order to substantiate it, the author should do further study and provide sufficient evidence to prove his/her conclusion.

分析还可以再详细点！！加油！！