Argument47 [勇往直前小组]第七次作业ByPuding

PudingUID：2364107

TOPIC: ARGUMENT47 - 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.
WORDS: 515          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-26

In the argument the author conclude that the decrease of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century. To support his conclusion he points out that the decrease of temperature is caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth. In addition, he infers that some surviving Asian historical records mention a loud boom that would consistent with a volcanic eruption, and the sudden bright flash of light is not mentioned in historical record. However, in my view the argument suffers from several logical flaws.

First and foremost, the author falsely depends on an assumption that the great boom mentioned in the historical record is caused by the volcanic eruption. On the one hand, there is no support in the statement to confirm that after the great boom, the temperature decreased. It is extremely possible that when the great boom happened, the temperature had already decreased. So it is unfairly to generalize that it was the great boom that cause the temperature to decline. On the other hand, even though the temperature drop was caused by the great boom, the author cannot convince me that the great boom was the result of the volcanic eruption. There might be other factors cause this kind of sound, for example the landslide, earthquake or the tsunami. Consequently, the author cannot make the argument without ruling out such possibilities.

Secondly, base on the argument that sudden bright flash of light is not mentioned in historical record, the author falsely depends on the assumption that a large meteorite hadn't colliding with earth. However, no evidence in the argument supports this point. It is extremely possible that the record was destroyed or had not been discovered. Even assuming that the record was not existing, the author cannot generalize that there was no such bright flash of light. For instance, the bright flash of light might be able to see only in the South Pole, yet there were no people there to record it. Thus it is unfair for the author to make such a judgment that a large meteorite hadn't colliding with earth.

Even assuming that the meteorite was not the cause for temperature decrease, the author falsely assumes that the volcanic eruption must be attribute to it. The "either-or" argument is fallacious in that it ignores other possible cause of temperature drop. For example, perhaps the plants on the earth emit too much oxygen into the air and the greenhouse effect was weakened, thus the temperature decreased. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot make his generalization.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that the decrease of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century, because the evidence in the analysis dose not lead strongly support to what the author maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author should investigate whether the volcanic eruption happened and what was the degree of it. In addition, the author should pay attention to other factors that are possibly leads to the decreased temperature.

提纲
A25
1.      论断的前题是本市没有高尔夫场和假日饭店，或是有但不够吸引人。但这一前提在论断中没有被保障成立。
2.      论断引用隔壁的成功经验做论据，却不具备说服力。
3.      论断说这是最好的方法也显然太过武断。

A242
1.      同意不做弊不等于就不做弊。没有学生会说自己就是要做弊。 ·
2.      这个办法有问题，以怀疑为基础，但怀疑表示猜测，会不准确。有可能会毁坏学生关系。 ·
3.      论据，报告的做弊数从五年前的21降到现在14，并不说明问题。
4.      调查，可能学生说的是本来也不想做弊。

A76
1.      没有关于样本人群的特征描述，不能证明参加试验的人群具有普遍代表性。
2.      没有关于试验过程的具体描述。
3.      没有对试验结果科学的描述。单凭志愿者自我报告感觉和看起来是非常不科学的。

A12
1.      论断的前提是我们的事故是因为睡眠不足和疲劳造成的，但是论者并没有提供这方面的资料。
2.      论断还有一个前提是我们的工作时间超出了工人的承受能力，从而造成了工人疲劳。但是这个前提同样也没有得到保证。
3.      论断引用与附近一家工厂的比较作为证据。但他却没有说明这家工厂是否与我们的工作性质相同。

[ 本帖最后由 Puding 于 2007-7-27 00:31 编辑 ]

nbta03UID：2326371

In the argument the author conclude that the decrease of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century. To support his conclusion he points out that the decrease of temperature is caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth. In addition, he infers that some surviving Asian historical records mention a loud boom that would consistent with a volcanic eruption, and the sudden bright flash of light is not mentioned in historical record. However, in my view the argument suffers from several logical flaws.（开头还是要精简）

First and foremost, the author falsely depends on an assumption that the great boom mentioned in the historical record is caused by the volcanic eruption. On the one hand, there is no support in the statement to confirm that after the great boom, the temperature decreased. It is extremely possible that when the great boom happened, the temperature had already decreased. So it is unfairly(unfair) to generalize that it was the great boom that cause the temperature to decline. On the other hand, even though the temperature drop was caused by the great boom, the author cannot convince me that the great boom was the result of the volcanic eruption. There might be other factors cause this kind of sound, for example the landslide, earthquake or the tsunami. Consequently, the author cannot make the argument(conclusion) without ruling out such possibilities. 攻击不一定是火山，可能其他理由

Secondly, base on the argument that sudden bright flash of light is not mentioned in historical record, the author falsely depends on the assumption that a large meteorite hadn't colliding with earth. However, no evidence in the argument supports this point. It is extremely possible that the record was destroyed or had not been discovered. Even assuming that the record was not existing(does not exist), the author cannot generalize that there was no such bright flash of light. For instance, the bright flash of light might be able to see only in the South Pole, yet there were no people there(there去掉) to record it. Thus it is unfair for the author to make such a judgment that a large meteorite hadn't colliding with earth.攻击没有闪光

Even assuming that the meteorite was not the cause for temperature decrease, the author falsely assumes that the volcanic eruption must be attribute to it. The "either-or" argument is fallacious in(since或者for) that it ignores other possible cause of temperature drop. For example, perhaps the plants on the earth emit too much oxygen into the air and the greenhouse effect was weakened, thus the temperature decreased. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot make his generalization.攻击非此即彼，还有他因

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that the decrease of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century, because the evidence in the analysis dose not lead strongly support to (what the author maintains是否改成that精简一些). To make the argument more convincing, the author should investigate whether the volcanic eruption happened and (what was需要么) the degree of it. In addition, the author should pay attention to other factors that are possibly leads to the decreased temperature.

[ 本帖最后由 nbta03 于 2007-7-27 19:47 编辑 ]

nbta03UID：2326371

另外问下：我的改后的那个顺序算是层层递进么  还是把第一个原因放到最后才算？
层层递进应该是从最根本的问题开始攻击么

nornsUID：2325187

In the argument the author conclude that the decrease of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century. To support his conclusion he points out that the decrease of temperature is caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth. In addition, he infers that some surviving Asian historical records mention a loud boom that would consistent with a volcanic eruption, and the sudden bright flash of light is not mentioned in historical record. However, in my view the argument suffers from several logical flaws.（开头可以适当简单点）

First and foremost, the author falsely depends on an assumption that the great boom mentioned in the historical record is caused by the volcanic eruption. On the one hand, there is no support in the statement to confirm that after the great boom, the temperature decreased. It is extremely possible that when the great boom(感觉你这个boom和原文还是有差距) happened, the temperature had already decreased. So it is unfairly(unfair) to generalize that it was the great boom that cause the temperature to decline. On the other hand, even though the temperature drop was caused by the great boom, the author cannot convince me that the great boom was the result of the volcanic eruption. There might be other factors cause this kind of sound, for example the landslide, earthquake or the tsunami. (这个理由很棒哦)Consequently, the author cannot make the argument(conclusion) without ruling out such possibilities.

Secondly, base on the argument that sudden bright flash of light is not mentioned in historical record, the author falsely depends on the assumption that a large meteorite hadn't colliding with earth. However, no evidence in the argument supports this point. It is extremely possible that the record was destroyed or had not been discovered. Even assuming that the record was not existing(does not exist), the author cannot generalize that there was no such bright flash of light. For instance, the bright flash of light might be able to see only in the South Pole,(你太强了..限时写这么多,还找得到这么好的理由) yet there were no people there(there去掉) to record it. Thus it is unfair for the author to make such a judgment that a large meteorite hadn't colliding with earth.攻击没有闪光

Even assuming that the meteorite was not the cause for temperature decrease, the author falsely assumes that the volcanic eruption must be attribute to it. The "either-or" argument is fallacious in(since或者for) that it ignores other possible cause of temperature drop. For example, perhaps the plants on the earth emit too much oxygen into the air and the greenhouse effect was weakened, thus the temperature decreased. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot make his generalization.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that the decrease of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century, because the evidence in the analysis dose not lead strongly support to (what the author maintains是否改成that精简一些). To make the argument more convincing, the author should investigate whether the volcanic eruption happened and (what was需要么) the degree of it. In addition, the author should pay attention to other factors that are possibly leads to the decreased temperature.

不过总体感觉可以适当分配时间在body上面,开头结尾短点点