argument47 【勇往直前小组】八年抗战..

nornsUID：2325187

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: 315 （500 modified）         TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-27 1:46:32

   By listing two possible reasons for the cooling, and evidence cited to exclude one of them, the author states that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. However, this argument suffers from some logic flaws to make it unpersuasive.
   Firstly, the given evidence to prove that there once was a world wide cooling time and the dimming of sun is dubious. As we know, at that time there was no system like Celsius Scales which can accurately measure the extent of coldness in quantity. So all their record based merely on their intuitive feelings. In fact，maybe the temperature had no remarkable drop and one who record based on his . In these cases, we are not sure whether the phenomenon of cooling existed at all. Furthermore, Even if the account was true, there are too few samples and proofs to claim a universal cooling. There are only a little accounts showing several parts of Asia and Europe was suffering cooling, however it is entirely possible that in other continent the temperature remained same. Therefore, the information the author provided is quite insufficient to confirm the existence of the phenomenon of world wide cooling time and the dimming of sun.
  Secondly, that no evidence showed a sudden bright flash doesn't mean it did not exist.  There are many causes that can lead to the same result. Is the bright enough that many people observed it? Is the record on which the flash was noted down safely preserved till nowadays? What's more, is the record lucky enough to be discovered by historians? If any of these happened, there would be no record presented to historians, though the flash really occurs. Therefore, merely based on the fact that no extant historical record cannot convince us that the meteorite colliding was not a cause for the cooling.
  Furthermore, even if the cause of large meteorite colliding with Earth is excluded and there was wide-spread cooling and dimming at that time, we are not sure the huge volcanic eruption is the real cause of it. In fact, by offering only two alternative reasons and exclude one, the author comes to the conclusion by committing false dilemma. Firstly, no record directly convinced us that there once was a volcanic eruption at that time. If so, there would be some evidence either from the record or from the geological proofs. However, the author failed to provide them. What’s more, there are many reasons which can also cause the cooling and the dimming of the sun. Maybe they’re caused by different factors and coincidently happened together. To be more exact, maybe the dimming was caused by the cloud or the sand storm. As to cooling, maybe it was caused by some other factors which- just like the cause of ELNINO-is quite complicated and has nothing to do with eruption of volcanoes. Therefore, the conclusion that eruption of volcanoes caused the cooling and dimming is not persuasive owning to the lacking of enough evidence.
To sum up。。。。

PudingUID：2364107

By listing two possible reasons for the cooling, and evidence cited to exclude one of them, the author states that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. However, this argument suffers from some logic flaws to make it unpersuasive.

Firstly, the given evidence to prove that there once was a world wide cooling time and the dimming of sun is dubious. As we know, at that time there was no system like Celsius Scales which can accurately measure the extent of coldness in quantity. So all their record based merely on their intuitive feelings. In fact，maybe the temperature had no remarkable drop and one who record based on his . In these cases, we are not sure whether the phenomenon of cooling existed at all. Furthermore, Even if the account was true, there are too few samples and proofs to claim a universal cooling. There are only a little accounts(account) showing several parts of Asia and Europe was suffering cooling, however it is entirely possible that in other continent the temperature remained same. Therefore, the information the author provided is quite insufficient to confirm the existence of the phenomenon of world wide cooling time and the dimming of sun.（攻击温度有没有下降）

Secondly, that no evidence showed a sudden bright flash doesn't mean it did not exist.  There are many causes that can lead to the same result. Is the bright enough that many people observed it? Is the record on which the flash was noted down safely preserved till nowadays? What's more, is the record lucky enough to be discovered by historians? （问句的形式很好啊，我以前怎么就没想到过呢？）If any of these happened, there would be no record presented to historians, though the flash really occurs. Therefore, merely based on the fact that no extant historical record cannot convince us that the meteorite colliding was not a cause for the cooling.(攻击没有闪光)

Furthermore, even if the cause of large meteorite colliding with Earth is excluded and there was wide-spread cooling and dimming at that time, we are not sure the huge volcanic eruption is the real cause of it. In fact, by offering only two alternative reasons and exclude one, the author comes to the conclusion by committing false dilemma. Firstly, no record directly convinced us that there once was a volcanic eruption at that time. If so, there would be some evidence either from the record or from the geological proofs. However, the author failed to provide them. What’s more, there are many reasons which can also cause the cooling and the dimming of the sun. Maybe they’re caused by different factors and coincidently happened together. To be more exact, maybe the dimming was caused by the cloud or the sand storm. As to cooling, maybe it was caused by some other factors which- just like the cause of ELNINO-is quite complicated and has nothing to do with eruption of volcanoes. Therefore, the conclusion that eruption of volcanoes caused the cooling and dimming is not persuasive owning to the lacking of enough evidence.（这段攻击的是非此即彼）


To sum up。。。。

[ 本帖最后由 Puding 于 2007-7-27 18:38 编辑 ]

nornsUID：2325187

9
1 Omni 上升和 不能推出是因为
2即使Omni是的，HUMAMA类比问题
3即使可以起到一定作用，是否是最好的办法？维修费且效果也不明显，降低教学质量，减少交流，值不值得

217
1 500个流行地方流不流行？调查显示，首先详细信息没提供即使提供了，减肥和健身很多方式
2 second evidence健康杂志，家庭健身器材，suspection
3quick profit

160
1 怎么判定老鼠的记忆几乎完全恢复？
2即使是的，是因为PEP酶吗（这一层不要是不是好点）
3even if，可以拿老鼠和人类比吗？
4aging的记忆， 对学习和注意力有作用吗？有没有副作用呢

151
1首先这个桥
2这个方案是否是当时条件下最好的，
3即使可以找到更好的，如果他是公正的，他是based on或者市政府大多数官员赞成的话，那么太苛刻了

nbta03UID：2326371

By listing two possible reasons for the cooling, and evidence cited to exclude one of them, the author states that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. However, this argument suffers from some logic flaws to make it unpersuasive.
   Firstly, the given evidence to prove that there once was a world wide cooling time and the dimming of sun is dubious. As we know, at that time there was no system like Celsius Scales which can accurately measure the extent of coldness in quantity. So all their record based merely on their intuitive feelings. In fact，maybe the temperature had no remarkable drop and one who record based on his . In these cases, we are not sure whether the phenomenon of cooling existed at all. Furthermore, Even if the account这里account表示记录？还是用data was true, there are too few samples and proofs to claim a universal cooling. There are only a little accounts showing several parts of Asia and Europe was suffering cooling, however it is entirely possible that in other continents the temperature remained same. Therefore, the information the author provided is quite insufficient to confirm the existence of the phenomenon of world wide cooling time and the dimming of sun.攻击温度不一定下降
  Secondly, that no evidence showed a sudden bright flash doesn't mean it did not exist.  There are many causes that can lead to the same result. Is the bright enough that many people observed it? Is the record on which the flash was noted down safely preserved till nowadays? What's more, is the record lucky enough to be discovered by historians? If any of these happened, there would be no record presented to historians, though the flash really occurs. Therefore, merely based on the fact that no extant historical record cannot convince us that the meteorite colliding was not a cause for the cooling.攻击没有闪光
  Furthermore, even if the cause of large meteorite colliding with Earth is excluded and there was wide-spread cooling and dimming at that time, we are not sure the huge volcanic eruption is the real cause of it. In fact, by offering only two alternative reasons and excludeexcluding one, the author comes to the conclusion by committing false dilemma. Firstly, no record directly convinced us that there once was a volcanic eruption at that time. If so, there would be some evidence either from the record or from the geological proofs. However, the author failed to provide them. What’s more, there are many reasons which can also cause the cooling and the dimming of the sun. Maybe they’re caused by different factors and coincidently happened together. To be more exact, maybe the dimming was caused by the cloud or the sand storm. As to cooling, maybe it was caused by some other factors which- just like the cause of ELNINO-is quite complicated and has nothing to do with eruption of volcanoes. Therefore, the conclusion that eruption of volcanoes caused the cooling and dimming is not persuasive owning to the lacking of enough evidence.
To sum up。。。。

这篇一开始我限时也只写350左右，刚拿到题晕了一下
看到norns 改前315，不知何原因？ 难道跟我一样？

nornsUID：2325187

找到逻辑错误倒是正常速度

可是不知道改怎么举反例