argument47 [无名小组]第八次作业

dinkyUID: 2108728

47Scientists 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.

In this argument, the author claims that the significant cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To substantiate his claim, the author cites the evidence that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright flash of light which would be created by the meteorite collision. To further justify his conclusion, the author also supplies surviving Asian historical records which mention a loud boom that would be caused by a volcanic eruption. Close scrutiny of the facts cited, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the author's conclusion.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author's conclusion is based on the assumption that no large meteorite collision happened in the mid-sixth century. However, the author fails to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is the case. The fact that there are no extant historical records of a bright flash of light is mere evidence that such a flash does not exist. Perhaps the collision happened in a remote place with few people, so nobody observed the flash caused by the collision; or perhaps the records of the flash and collision have not been discovered or have been lost during a long period of history. Either of the scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's conclusion that it is not the meteorite collision that caused the significant change of weather in the mid-sixth century.

Another flaw which can weaken the author's claim is that the author falsely rests his conclusion on the assumption that the loud boom recorded by the Asian historical records is caused by the volcanic eruption. The author fails to take into account that many other possibilities besides the volcanic eruption would be responsible for the loud boom. It is possible that the boom was caused by an earthquake. It is even possible that the boom is in fact caused by a meteorite collision, while the flash of light was too instantaneous to be observed and recorded by the ancient Asians. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot convince me that the volcanic eruption actually happened at that time.

Finally, even assuming that the volcanic eruption not the meteorite collision happened in the mid-sixth century, the author's inference that the significant cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption is still unfounded. No evidence indicates that the volcanic eruption is large enough to change the weather over the world. Perhaps the eruption is not serious. Besides, although a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could block sunlight and low the temperatures, the activity of the sun itself would have a comparable effect on cooling the earth. Perhaps, the sun's activity at that time is not active, and no abundant sunlight arrived at the earth. For that matter, the cooling might be attributable to the sun's activity rather than the volcanic eruption.

In conclusion, this argument is logically flawed and unpersuasive. To make it acceptable, the author must provide adequate evidence that volcanic eruption happened in the mid-sixth century while the meteorite collision did not. In addition, I need more information concerning the activity of the sun to better evaluate the author's conclusion.

iq28UID: 2152875

47Scientists 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.

In this argument, the author claims that the significant cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To substantiate his claim, the author cites the evidence that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright flash of light which would be created by the meteorite collision. To further justify his conclusion, the author also supplies surviving Asian historical records which mention a loud boom that would be caused by a volcanic eruption. Close scrutiny of the facts cited, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the author's conclusion.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author's conclusion is based on the assumption that no large meteorite collision happened in the mid-sixth century. However, the author fails to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is the case. The fact that there are no extant historical records of a bright flash of light is mere evidence that such a flash does not exist. （说反了？能证明的只是没被观测到吧，不能认为是没有发生过。）Perhaps the collision happened in a remote place with few people, so nobody observed the flash caused by the collision; or perhaps the records of the flash and collision have not been discovered or have been lost during a long period of history. Either of the scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's conclusion that it is not the meteorite collision that caused the significant change of weather in the mid-sixth century.（这段除了那句反掉的话已经相当可以了。;) ）

Another flaw which can weaken the author's claim is that the author falsely rests his conclusion on the assumption that the loud boom recorded by the Asian historical records is caused by the volcanic eruption. The author fails to take into account that many other possibilities besides the volcanic eruption would be responsible for the loud boom. It is possible that the boom was caused by an earthquake. It is even possible that the boom is in fact caused by a meteorite collision, while the flash of light was too instantaneous to be observed and recorded by the ancient Asians. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot convince me that the volcanic eruption actually happened at that time. （bingo）

Finally, even assuming that the volcanic eruption not the meteorite collision happened in the mid-sixth century, the author's inference that the significant cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption is still unfounded. No evidence indicates that the volcanic eruption is large enough to change the weather over the world. Perhaps the eruption is not serious. （这两句话读起来有点awkward。后一句可以直接去掉了）Besides, although a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could block sunlight and low the temperatures, the activity of the sun itself would have a comparable effect on cooling the earth. （很bingo的一个攻击点！至少我之前从未想到过。最好说得更明确一些，直指地球上再热闹的事情也跟太阳无关；而材料本身也提到了太阳diming的问题，那么这不是自己闪自己嘴巴么？）Perhaps, the sun's activity at that time is not active, and no abundant sunlight arrived at the earth. For that matter, the cooling might be attributable to the sun's activity rather than the volcanic eruption.

In conclusion, this argument is logically flawed and unpersuasive. To make it acceptable, the author must provide adequate evidence that volcanic eruption happened in the mid-sixth century while the meteorite collision did not. In addition, I need more information concerning the activity of the sun to better evaluate the author's conclusion.

说实话你的argument已经很成熟了，我也挑不出太多毛病。
当然这篇题目本身也不难。
让我给分，5吧。
加油。;)
多多参考ETS官方的分文章。

iq28UID: 2152875

非要挑刺的话可以试着再加上一个攻击点，亚洲和欧洲的资料不能证明全球气候真的都变冷了。而且气候变冷是一个长时间的事件。也许历史记录只是某些年份的异常。
这个点不攻击的话，全都是在攻击变冷的原因上了。

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-7-31 07:00 编辑 ]

dagger_zhangUID: 2140939

原帖由 iq28 于 2007-7-31 06:08 发表
  47Scientists 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 ...

我觉得版版的分析有点问题
文章中的dim正是怀疑火山喷发或者行星坠落的灰尘隔离了太阳造成的，没有自相矛盾，但是楼主怀疑影响程度是没有问题的
另外非常支持版版添加的那个观点