Agument47 [Victors小组]第6次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

47Scientists 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.

提纲：1没有关于亮光的记录不等于没有亮光。
            2亚洲关于巨响的记录不能说明发生过火山喷发。
            3作者忽略了其他可能引起地球变冷的原因。

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. In order to support his conclusion he or she cites a fact that some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. In addition, the arguer points out no extant historical records of the time mention a flash but Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. In my view, the argument contains some logical flaws.

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that no sudden bright flash of light happened. The fact cited in the argument that no extant records of the time mention such a flash can not justify this assumption. As every one knows, in the mid-sixth centre, paper has not been used widely, as a result, the historical record is difficult to conserve. It is likely that the record about such a sudden bright flash of light was lost. It is even possible that due to religion or political factor nobody could record such a light. Unless rule out foregoing alternative explanation, the arguer can not make some significative conclusion.

In the second place, the records about a loud boom cannot justify that a volcanic eruption happened. Evidently, many phenomena can bring about a loud boom. Unfortunately, the arguer fails to provide credible evidence to prove that it is a volcanic eruption that caused the loud boom.

Last but not the least, the arguer fail to take other possible reason into account. The arguer takes it for granted that it is a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that lowered global temperatures significantly. However, he or she fails to provide the record about the dust cloud. With out the evidence, the conclusion is hasty at best.

In conclusion, the argument relies on a series of unjustifiable assumption, which makes it not as tenable as it stands. In order to strengthen it, the arguer must provide the evidence which indicates that sudden bright flash of light happened. In addition, he or she should prove that the loud boom mentioned in Asian historical records of the time can justify a volcanic eruption. To assess the argument better, we should know whether other factors caused Earth became significantly cooler.

jennetrjUID: 2275453

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. In order to support his conclusion he or she cites a fact that some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. In addition, the arguer points out no extant historical records of the time mention a flash but Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. In my view, the argument contains some logical flaws. [乳虎的ARGUMENT首段总是层次清晰、简洁，舒服！]

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that no sudden bright flash of light happened. The fact cited in the argument that no extant records of the time mention such a flash can not justify this assumption. As every one knows, in the mid-sixth centre, paper has not been used widely, as a result, the historical record is difficult to conserve. It is likely that the record about such a sudden bright flash of light was lost. It is even possible that due to religion or political factor nobody could record such a light. Unless rule[ruling] out foregoing alternative explanation, the arguer can not make some significative conclusion.

In the second place, the records about a loud boom cannot justify that a volcanic eruption happened. Evidently, many phenomena can bring about a loud boom. Unfortunately, the arguer fails to provide credible evidence to prove that it is a volcanic eruption that caused the loud boom. [本段的驳论太过单薄，容易给人无话可说的误解，影响阅卷人对作者分析及语言能力的评判]

Last but not the least, the arguer fail to take other possible reason into account. The arguer takes it for granted that it is a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that lowered global temperatures significantly. However, he or she fails to provide the record about the dust cloud. With out the evidence, the conclusion is hasty at best. [没有驳论的实质性内容]

In conclusion, the argument relies on a series of unjustifiable assumption, which makes it not as tenable as it stands. In order to strengthen it, the arguer must provide the evidence which indicates that sudden bright flash of light happened. In addition, he or she should prove that the loud boom mentioned in Asian historical records of the time can justify a volcanic eruption. To assess the argument better, we should know whether other factors caused Earth became significantly cooler.

不知是否限时完成的ARGUMENT，好象写得很仓促。逻辑错误基本有了，可以进一步分析命题中逻辑链的推理力度，使得文章更多内容可写