argument47 [OB小组]第5次作业_stonescj

stonescjUID: 2359180

47 syllabus
1. 前提不成立，火山爆发与巨响无关；
2. 当时没有损石撞击地球，不一定成立。可能白光没有被人们看见，记录可能损坏或是没有被发现
3。除了火山爆发和损石撞地球之外可能还有别的原因导致温度下降
The editorial is not convictive as it supposes that the stated correlation implies causation, which is not necessary the case. The arguer asserts that the cooling was probably due to a volcanic eruption with ruling out another reason that a large meteorite colliding with earth. As it stands, the argument is exposed to several critical logic flaws as follows.

First of all, the reliability of the precondition is open to doubt. It is not inevitable that a huge volcanic eruption has some correlation with a loud boom. The arguer has not presented any data and evidence about Asian historical records to prove that hypothesis. In fact, the record is not aim at to note the volcanic eruption. Maybe it is just a coincidence between loud boom and huge volcanic eruption. In addition, the arguer has not given the exact time about the loud booming, it is entirely possible that the decreasing temperature was happened before the loud boom. Without ruling out those conceivable, it is groundless put out the prediction so early.

Furthermore, even if we concede that the there is in fact affiliation between volcanic eruption and loud boom, it is also questionable about the prediction that a large meteorite has not collided with Earth. The arguer should testify the reliability of the record before cited it. Actually, maybe the sudden bright flash of light was happened in a limited range, so the intensity and luminance was so feeble that only a few people saw it and have not record it. Maybe the record has been mangled or has not been found at all. Failing out figure out this peradventure, the arguer can not make such an affirmative conclusion that the meteorite collision could not influence the global temperature.

Finally, even if we presume that the veracity of the record, this does not necessarily means that there are not other probable reasons could also affect the global temperature. It is quite possible that other natural phenomena would contribute to the cooling of earth, such as earthquake, tide, inundation and so on. Consequently, the inadequate inquisition can not serve as a cogent evidence for the argument.

To sum up, the argument lacks of comprehensive demonstration. In order to make the arguer's suggestion more reasonable, it is necessary to bring forth extensive and convincing analysis and evidence.