argument47 勇往直前小组

zhangjing106UID：2157010

In the argument, the arguer draw a conclusion that a volcanic eruption is the cause of the cooling in the mid-sixth century. He also provides several historical records to support his opinion. At first glance, the arguer's consequence seems rational. However, I find some some flaws in his logic.

Firstly of all, the accounts found Both in Asia and Europe may not reflect all situations of Earth. Perhaps only Asia and Europe had happened such a significant declining of temperature, not the global cool as the arguer mentioned. In the mid-sixth century, people already had enough abilities to write down historical records. We could find some important documents in libraries about the history of the mid-sixth century. Why are there no records about this significant cool of Earth in the mid-six century besides some accounts of Asia and Europe? It was possible that the cool mentioned by the arguer in the mid-six century only occured in Asia and Europe, not global cool of Earth.

Secondly, given that scientists are sure that the global cool really happened before based on accounts found both in Asia and Europe, the conclusion that it was caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is still unwarranted. Besides such two instances, there are several other reasons could cause the declining temperature of Earth. Perhaps the action inside Sun becomed slowly and could not emit enough energy to keep Earth warm as before.Or there was a great earthquake occured in Arctic or Antarctic which made icehills collided to be small and melting to decrease the temperature of Earth. Even if the cool was caused by a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, it was likely that there were two meteorite colliding with each other near Earth to create so much dust, desides two causations as a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth.

Thirdly, even if only a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding could created a large dust could to cover Earth and make it cooler, the arguer still have no evidences to prove that the causation is a volcanis eruption rather than a large meteorite colliding, because no extant historical records mentione a flash created by colliding between mateerite and Earth. Perhaps such a flash exactly happened, but the recorders who were attracted by a loud boom ignored it at all. Or some records had accounted the flash, but they do not survive from that time. It is false to draw such a conclusion only by not being mentioned without any certain persuasive evidence.

At last, I consider that the arguer's conclusion is too absolute to declaim that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. There are many other kinds of causations as discussed above. To support his stands better the arguer should provide more evidences to exclude all the other possibilities.

25.
1、过去两年中，没证据证明O城的旅客增加是因为高尔夫球馆和度假旅馆。其他原因很开发的旅游业、海景。
2、没证据证明开设新的商业机构和增加税收是因为高尔夫球馆。可能因为政府新的吸引投资的政策，可能因为提高了税收比率和税种。
3、两城市是否具有可比性？

12.
1、没有信息表明A的事故率高的30%是因为时间比P长一个小时，其他原因，工人的操作是否正确，机器是否正常运转
2、没有说明A的工人睡眠不足以及疲惫，工作时间长一个小时不代表睡眠必然少一个小时
3、两个工厂可能从事的行业不同，如A厂是建筑行业，较危险，容易发生工伤，P厂是高科技行业，安全，不易发生工伤。

76.
1、需要提供没有使用L面霜的人做对照组，才有说服力。对效果的描述太抽象。
2、柔和香皂可能对改善皮肤也有效果，而不是L面霜的作用。
3、没有证明说志愿者在除早晨外的其他时间没有使用其他的面霜或者护肤品，可能是其他产品的作用而不是L面霜的作用。

242.
1、实施新体制的五年间的数值是如何变化的呢？没有提到
2、新体制的的漏洞：承诺不作弊就真的不作弊了吗？是否每次作弊都有人上报给老师？可能学生相互包庇隐瞒作弊行为。
3、调查中，学生说了实话了吗？

[ 本帖最后由 zhangjing106 于 2007-7-27 00:29 编辑 ]

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

argument47 勇往直前小组
In the argument, the arguer draw a conclusion that a volcanic eruption is the cause of the cooling in the mid-sixth century. He also provides several historical records to support his opinion. At first glance, the arguer's consequence seems rational. However, I find some some flaws in his logic.

Firstly of all, the accounts found Both in Asia and Europe may not reflect all situations of Earth. Perhaps only Asia and Europe had happened such a significant declining of temperature, not the global cool as the arguer mentioned. In the mid-sixth century, people already had enough abilities to write down historical records. We could find some important documents in libraries about the history of the mid-sixth century. Why are there no records about this significant cool of Earth in the mid-six century besides some accounts of Asia and Europe? It was possible that the cool mentioned by the arguer in the mid-six century only occured in Asia and Europe, not global cool of Earth.（文中的原文是Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. 如果再说the accounts found Both in Asia and Europe may not reflect all situations of Earth.是没有道理的）

Secondly, given that scientists are sure that the global cool really happened before based on accounts found both in Asia and Europe, the conclusion that it was caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is still unwarranted. Besides such two instances, there are several other reasons could cause the declining temperature of Earth. Perhaps the action inside Sun becomed slowly and could not emit enough energy to keep Earth warm as before.Or there was a great earthquake occured in Arctic or Antarctic which made icehills collided to be small and melting to decrease the temperature of Earth.（反例有点牵强） Even if the cool was caused by a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, it was likely that there were two meteorite colliding with each other near Earth to create so much dust, desides two causations as a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth.

Thirdly, even if only a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding could created a large dust could to cover Earth and make it cooler, the arguer still have no evidences to prove that the causation is a volcanis eruption rather than a large meteorite colliding, because no extant historical records mentione a flash created by colliding between mateerite and Earth. Perhaps such a flash exactly happened, but the recorders who were attracted by a loud boom ignored it at all. Or some records had accounted the flash, but they do not survive from that time. It is false to draw such a conclusion only by not being mentioned without any certain persuasive evidence. （文中的原文是and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash.此时再说可能是他们没有找到记录我觉得是没有道理的）

At last, I consider that the arguer's conclusion is too absolute to declaim that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. There are many other kinds of  dcausations as discussed above. To support his stands better the arguer should provide more evidences to exclude all the other possibilities.

linshaoUID：2338229

In the argument, the arguer draw a conclusion that a volcanic eruption is the cause of the cooling in the mid-sixth century. He also provides several historical records to support his opinion. At first glance, the arguer's consequence seems rational. However, I find some flaws in his logic.

Firstly of all, the accounts found Both in Asia and Europe may not reflect all situations of Earth. Perhaps only Asia and Europe had happened such a significant declining of temperature, not the global cool as the arguer mentioned. In the mid-sixth century, people already had enough abilities to write down historical records. We could find some important documents in libraries about the history of the mid-sixth century. Why are there no records about this significant cool of Earth in the mid-six century besides some accounts of Asia and Europe?（这句话太主观了，不利于论证）It was possible that the cool mentioned by the arguer in the mid-six century only occured in Asia and Europe, not global cool of Earth.

Secondly, given that scientists are sure that the global cool really happened before based on accounts found both in Asia and Europe, the conclusion that it was caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is still unwarranted. Besides such two instances, there are several other reasons could cause the declining temperature of Earth. Perhaps the action inside Sun becomed slowly and could not emit enough energy to keep Earth warm as before.Or there was a great earthquake occured in Arctic or Antarctic which made icehills collided to be small and melting to decrease the temperature of Earth. Even if the cool was caused by a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, it was likely that there were two meteorite colliding with each other near Earth to create so much dust, desides two causations as a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth.

Thirdly, even if only a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding could created a large dust could to cover Earth and make it cooler, the arguer still have no evidences to prove that the causation is a volcanis eruption rather than a large meteorite colliding, because no extant historical records mentione a flash created by colliding between mateerite and Earth. Perhaps such a flash exactly happened, but the recorders who were attracted by a loud boom ignored it at all. Or some records had accounted the flash, but they do not survive from that time. It is false to draw such a conclusion only by not being mentioned without any certain persuasive evidence.

At last, I consider that the arguer's conclusion is too absolute to declaim that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. There are many other kinds of causations as discussed above. To support his stands better the arguer should provide more evidences to exclude all the other possibilities.

论述清晰，关键错误分析得很到位了！
组长的I已经很完善了！


[ 本帖最后由 linshao 于 2007-7-27 23:58 编辑 ]