Argument47 [OB小组]_第5次作业

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

In this argument, scientists conclude that the sudden cold in the mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To support his views, the author suggests that the cold would be the result of two factors: a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite. However, a large meteorite collision would create a sudden bright flash of light while there's no extant record of such a flash. Moreover, there's a record that mentions a loud boom which would be consistent with a volcanic eruption and therefore, the author get such conclusion. However, the argument has several limitations so that it failed to convince me.

First, a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with earth are not the only possible cause of a dimming of the sun. There may be some other natural disasters that could result in such a dimming of the sun. Besides, the author excludes the possible cause of a large meteorite since there's no extent historical record of such a flash. However, there's the possibility that the records are missing or they're still stored in somewhere else that we couldn't find. And what's more, when there's a flash shining through the world, it is possible that not everybody in the world could see that, for it may happen in the South Pole area. So only by judging the existence of a bright flash to estimate whether the dimming of the sun is related to a meteorite isn't available.

Secondly, the author concludes that the dimming of the sun is caused by a volcanic eruption since some Asian historical records mention a loud boom then. However, the author gives no evidence which would prove that the boom is related to the dimming of the sun. Furthermore, the author doesn't explain the time order of the cold and the loud boom. If I concede that there's such a boom then, we still don't know whether the cold happens before the boom or not. If it does happen before the boom, then the argument of the boom becomes pale.

Thirdly, a meteorite colliding with Earth may results in some other phenomenon such as tsunami, earthquakes, floods as well as hurricanes. However, the author directly excludes the possibilities of such disasters without any evidence. This makes the whole argument cannot stand.

In sum, the author failed to convince me that the sudden cold is right caused by a volcanic eruption. In order to give strong support to this view, the author should do more research on other possibility of causing the sudden cold and add more evidence to the argument.