Argument47 [Victors小组]第五次作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

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.

本来还是按什么前提论据分开论证的方式走，后来听了totalsm45518的意见觉得那样不好，找可以那样找，论证的话就算了，不然很乱。
1，造成cold temperature的不一定只有两点。Other: slight change of the earth’s revolving track against the sun. dust resulted from other planet’s burst. Typhoon, decrease of sun’s superficial tempreture.
2，没有flash不代表没有撞击。Others: the collision happened in unexplored, desert area or ocean. the flash is transient. There was record but destroyed or haven’t been found
3，Loud boom 不代表火山爆发。Tsunami(海啸有声音吗?) thunder, or other undetermined facts which do not produce dust
4. area的问题，

首尾都顺应时代的潮流缩短了~

字数581  未限时
While it seems true that the facts presented in the above argument contribute to the idea that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny—in four respects.

First of all, the author unwarranted assumes that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is the only reason could have resulted in Earth’s cooling. However, it is entirely possible that other facts instead of the two mentioned above lead to the Earth-wide cooling. For instance, perhaps there was a slight change of the earth’s revolving track towards sun at that time, which indirectly increased the distance between earth and sun. This slender distance’s changing could have contributed to the cooling ultimately. Similarly, reasons like dust from other planet’s burst, typhoon or merely the decease of sun’s superficial temperature and so forth can always serve as explanations for the cooling. Without eliminating these possibilities, the author cannot narrow down the consideration to the two reasons mentioned in the argument.

Secondly, the absence of flash historical records can not verify the nonexistence of the meteorite colliding adequately. It is possible that the collision happened in an unexplored desert area or in the ocean with no one nearby to observe and record it. It may also true that the flash happened in a transient time and no one could even catch it at that time. Moreover, having not found any historical records on flash light can’t promise that the flash light had never been recorded. The ancient records may have been destroyed or ruined in the unstable historical environment all the way till today, or perhaps it survives completely but archeologist today haven’t found it successfully. I can not be convinced that meteorite colliding didn’t happen at that time while the author fails to rule out all these alternatives.

Thirdly, the argument depends on a questionable assumption that a loud boom represents a volcanic eruption exclusively. Nevertheless, a recorded loud boom may caused by a great diversity of circumstances determined or undetermined. For example, Tsunami, thunder and such nature phenomenon as well as some other likely undiscovered facts are able to lead to the loud boom promisingly. Possibility exists that these probable reasons rather than volcanic eruption do not along created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere. If so, the records of loud boom provide scant support for the author’s conclusion.

Finally, the author commits some fallacies on using the evidences of several particular areas to generalize the whole Earth. Some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mentioned a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures are not sufficient to represent the condition of the Earth in the mid-sixth century. Compared to the whole surface area of the earth, the above two continents represent merely a small part of the land. The author fails to consider that the accounts found may only be narrations about the individual local areas but not a representation of an Earth-wide problem. Analogously, some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, can not serve as strong evidence on the fact that the loud boom—betokens the volcanic eruption as the author assumes—is a phenomenon effects the whole Earth.

In conclusion, the argument is dubious at best. Before I can accept its conclusion, the author must provide better evidences on the reason of cooling and the happening of volcanic eruption as well as present better reasoning line.

[ 本帖最后由 solartorch 于 2007-5-19 17:36 编辑 ]

H-KevinUID: 2182070

While it seems true that the facts presented in the above argument contribute to the idea that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny—in four respects.

First of all, the author unwarranted assumes that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is the only reason could have resulted in Earth’s cooling. However, it is entirely possible that other facts instead of the two mentioned above lead to the Earth-wide cooling. For instance, perhaps there was a slight change of the earth’s revolving track towards sun at that time, which indirectly increased the distance between earth and sun（这个理由比较牵强，好像可能性极小）. This slender distance’s changing could have contributed to the cooling ultimately. Similarly, reasons like dust from other planet’s burst, typhoon or merely the decease of sun’s superficial temperature and so forth can always serve as explanations for the cooling. Without eliminating these possibilities, the author cannot narrow down the consideration to the two reasons mentioned in the argument.

Secondly, the absence of flash historical records can not verify the nonexistence of the meteorite colliding adequately. It is possible that the collision happened in an unexplored desert area or in the ocean with no one nearby to observe and record it. It may also true that the flash happened in a transient time and no one could even catch it at that time. Moreover, having not found any historical records on flash light can’t promise that the flash light had never been recorded. The ancient records may have been destroyed or ruined in the unstable historical environment all the way till today, or perhaps it survives completely but archeologist today haven’t found it successfully. I can not be convinced that meteorite colliding didn’t happen at that time while the author fails to rule out all these alternatives.

Thirdly, the argument depends on a questionable assumption that a loud boom represents a volcanic eruption exclusively. Nevertheless, a recorded loud boom may caused by a great diversity of circumstances determined or undetermined. For example, Tsunami, thunder and such nature phenomenon as well as some other likely undiscovered facts are able to lead to the loud boom promisingly. Possibility exists that these probable reasons rather than volcanic eruption do not along created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere. If so, the records of loud boom provide scant support for the author’s conclusion.

Finally, the author commits some fallacies on using the evidences of several particular areas to generalize the whole Earth. Some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mentioned a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures are not sufficient to represent the condition of the Earth in the mid-sixth century. Compared to the whole surface area of the earth, the above two continents represent merely a small part of the land. The author fails to consider that the accounts found may only be narrations about the individual local areas but not a representation of an Earth-wide problem. Analogously, some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, can not serve as strong evidence on the fact that the loud boom—betokens the volcanic eruption as the author assumes—is a phenomenon effects the whole Earth.

In conclusion, the argument is dubious at best. Before I can accept its conclusion, the author must provide better evidences on the reason of cooling and the happening of volcanic eruption as well as present better reasoning line.

你文章写的很好了，超出了我的修改能力，所以。。。。。