Argument47 勇往直前小组第7次作业nbta03

nbta03UID：2326371

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.

Modified:
In the argument, the arguer concludes that the the sudden cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century was cause by a volcanic eruption. At first glance , the conclusion seems to be appealing, while further reflection about the evidences cited by the arguer would reveals how groundless the argument is.

First, the arguer claims that 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. However, the arguer provide no evidence to show these are the only two causes of the cooling. It is likely that some other factors will also lead to a dust, such as huge storm, earthquake and so on. No evidence shows that some other disasters could not form such a dust. The arguer should rule out other possiblities to make the conclusion convincing.

Second, granted that only a volcanic eruption and a meteorite colliding with Earth could cause a dust that results in cooling, which is , of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that the latter could not be the cause only because no extant historical records of the time mention a flash that probably be created by the collided meteorite. No evidence is not an evidence. Maybe at that time, people had not invented letters for record or the flash was not seen by people or even the record had been destroyed. All these possible factors should be taken into account.

Finally, the arguer contributes the cooling to a volcanic eruption since that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. But it is not the case. No evidence mentioned shows that the boom is made by a volcanic eruption, while some other factor, like earthquake, thunder, could do the same work. Supposed that it is a volcanic eruption, if the cooling happened before the eruption, then the cooling has nothing to do with the volcanic eruption. Furthermore, even if these two occurred at the same time, we could not surely establish a causal relation between them without eliminating other eventual factors.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the conclusion , the arguer would have to rule out other possibilities that may cause the cooling. Additionally, we would need more information about the record of the record of the loud boom.



Original:
In the argument, the arguer concludes that the the sudden cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century was cause by a volcanic eruption. At first glance , the conclusion seems to be appealing, while further reflection about the evidences cited by the arguer would reveals how groundless the argument is.

First, the arguer claims that  a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere would be capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. However, the arguer provide no evidence to show the insufficient sunlight is the only cause of the cooling. It is likely that speed of the heat give away by earth is faster than that absorb, which also lead the cooling. The arguer should rule out other possiblities to make the conclusion convincing.

Second, granted that the cooling is the result of the a large dust cloud, which is , of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that the dust is caused only by a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. Some other factors may result in the dust, such as pollution, huge storm, earthquakes. All these relevant factors should be taken into account.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Given that the dust is only caused by either a volcanic eruption or a meteorite colliding with Earth, we could not accept that it must be eruption for that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash that probably be created by a large meteorite collision. No evidence is not an evidence. Maybe certain flash had not been recorded or a large meteorite collision which caused the dust, had not made a flash. Furthermore, the arguer reasons that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. But no evidence shows that the boom is made by a volcanic eruption, while some other factor, like earthquake, thunder, could do the same work.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the conclusion , the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the relation between the dust and the cooling and also rule out  other possible cause of the dust. Additionally, we would need more information about the record of the record of the loud boom.

两篇差的很多，不知道原来的那个思路行不？麻烦都看一下吧：）


[ 本帖最后由 nbta03 于 2007-7-26 23:09 编辑 ]

PudingUID：2364107

Modified:
In the argument, the arguer concludes that the the（去掉） sudden cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century was cause by a volcanic eruption. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be appealing, while further reflection about the evidences cited by the arguer would reveals how groundless the argument is.

First, the arguer claims that 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. However, the arguer provide(provedes) no evidence to show these are the only two causes of the cooling. It is likely that some other factors will also lead to a dust, such as huge storm, earthquake and so on. No evidence shows that some other disasters could not form such a dust. The arguer should rule out other possibilities(possibilities) to make the conclusion convincing.（攻击无理假设，忽略他因）

Second, granted that only a volcanic eruption and a meteorite colliding with Earth could cause a dust that results in cooling, which is , of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that the latter could not be the cause only because no extant historical records of the time mention a flash that probably be created by the collided meteorite. No evidence is not an evidence(evidence). Maybe at that time, people had not invented letters for record or the flash was not seen by people or even the record had been destroyed. All these possible factors should be taken into account.(攻击没有闪光)

Finally, the arguer contributes the cooling to a volcanic eruption since that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. But it is not the case. No evidence mentioned shows that the boom is made by a volcanic eruption, while some other factor, like earthquake, thunder, could do the same work. Supposed that（去掉）it is a volcanic eruption, if the cooling happened before the eruption, then the cooling has nothing to do with the volcanic eruption. Furthermore, even if these two occurred at the same time, we could not surely establish a causal relation between them without eliminating other eventual factors.（攻击巨响造成火山喷发）

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer would have to rule out other possibilities that may cause the cooling. Additionally, we would need more information about the record of the record of the loud boom.
（偶觉得第一个逻辑错误还是放到最后会比较好）Original:
In the argument, the arguer concludes that the the sudden cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century was cause by a volcanic eruption. At first glance , the conclusion seems to be appealing, while further reflection about the evidences cited by the arguer would reveals how groundless the argument is.

First, the arguer claims that  a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere would be capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. However, the arguer provide(provides) no evidence to show the insufficient sunlight is the only cause of the cooling. It is likely that speed of the heat give away by earth is faster than that absorb, which also lead the cooling. The arguer should rule out other possibilities to make the conclusion convincing.（攻击阳光是温度下降的唯一原因）

Second, granted that the cooling is the result of the a large dust cloud, which is , of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that the dust is caused only by a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. Some other factors may result in the dust, such as pollution, huge storm, earthquakes. All these relevant factors should be taken into account.（攻击浮尘是由火山造成的）

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Given that the dust is only caused by either a volcanic eruption or a meteorite colliding with Earth, we could not accept that it must be eruption for that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash that probably be created by a large meteorite collision. No evidence is not an evidence(evidence). Maybe certain flash had not been recorded or a large meteorite collision which caused the dust had not made a flash. Furthermore, the arguer reasons that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. But no evidence shows that the boom is made by a volcanic eruption, while some other factor, like earthquake, thunder, could do the same work.（攻击非此即彼，以及没有闪光的问题）

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the conclusion , the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the relation between the dust and the cooling and also rule out  other possible cause of the dust. Additionally, we would need more information about the record of the record of the loud boom.

改后的结构好，再把攻击阳光是温度下降的唯一原因这一条加上就更具说服力。
改前的结构不好

[ 本帖最后由 Puding 于 2007-7-27 19:01 编辑 ]

nbta03UID：2326371

改后的这个顺序算是层层递进么  层层递进应该是从最根本的问题开始攻击么

nornsUID：2325187

我觉得一般结构明显的是 证据层;证据直接推的那个结论成不成立; 最后是错误类比啊什么的逻辑错误.

我感觉首先从证据本身的可信度下手好些~