argument47 [kb9.11] 第六次作业

prophetluoUID: 2240098

The conclusion that the cooling in themid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption seems at firstglance to be a convinced notion. To the support the conclusion ,the authorpresented an evidence that some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and the extremelycold temperatures and then gave 2 assumptions to explain the evidence. Inaddition the evidence that some surviving Asian historical records of the time,mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption wasprovided to justify the conclusion. A careful examination of this argumentwould reveal how groundless the notion is .
In the first place, the author ispresenting a false dilemma by imposing an either or choice. The accounts found bothin Asia and Europe which mention a dimming ofthe sun and extremely cold temperatures, might not be explained by mere twoassumption that the author made in this argument. With the basic knowledge inweather, a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere is not the only wayto explain those two weather phenomenon above, because the activity of the Suntake a great part in Earth's temperatures and the dimming of the sun and theamount of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere influence the temperatures too. Unfortunatelythe author have not excluded those two factors, the two assumption upon whichthe argument  relies on might both fallacies.
    In the second place, even if the twoassumption could be accepted, there still is a fantastic deduction. The factthat no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash does notjustify the assertion that there was no large meteorite collision in the time.Since the possibility that the meteorite collision happed in the day, or  far away from the habitat of human exists andthe records mention such a flash may be destroyed, the fallacy of the author's deductionis  apparent.
    In the third place, the argument simplyequates a loud boom with the very volcanic eruption which cause the change ofweather. Firstly, the difference between a loud boom and the sound of avolcanic eruption may be so little to be clarified. Commonsense teach us thatthe sound of thunder is a loud boom which would be consistent with a volcaniceruption, therefore there was no more evidence to show how special the very loudboom is to justify it is really a sound produced by a volcanic eruption.Secondly, even if we believe that the record of a loud boom showed there was avolcanic eruption, more evidence should be given in order to justify that itwas the very volcanic eruption. If the eruption was so acuity even change the temperatureof Earth, the person who record the loud boom might suffer from the calamityand recorded it too.
    To sum up ,the argument suffers from severalfallacy. To better support the conclusion the author should make it explicitthat the two  assumptions were the onlychoose and more evidence concerning volcanic eruption's record and the  geologic analysis of Earth which can excludethe possibility of meteorite collision.

goldzincUID: 2378390

The conclusion that the cooling in themid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption seems at firstglance to be a convinced notion. To the support the conclusion,the authorpresented evidence that some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and the extremelycold temperatures and then gave 2 assumptions to explain the evidence. Inaddition the evidence that some surviving Asian historical records of the time,mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption wasprovided to justify the conclusion. A careful examination of this argumentwould reveal how groundless the notion is.
In the first place, the author ispresenting a false dilemma by imposing an either or choice. The accounts found bothin Asia and Europe which mentions a dimming ofthe sun and extremely cold temperature(“温度”不能用”冷”来形容), might not be explained by mere twoassumption that the author made in this argument. With the basic knowledge inweather, a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere is not the only wayto explain those two weather phenomenon above, because the activity of the Suntake a great part in Earth's temperatures and the dimming of the sun and theamount of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere influence the temperatures too. Unfortunatelythe author have not excluded those two factors, the two assumption upon whichthe argument relies on might both fallacies.
嗯，这段的逻辑有点乱：作者之所以得出那两种可能性，有一个很重要的假设是他认为是大气内的尘土遮住了太阳导致气温下降。所以如果我们要说作者false dilemma的话，必须先接受这个假设并且在此基础上找其他可能性。或者我们直接否认这个假设的唯一性，说那次气温下降不一定必然由尘土飞扬导致。也可以干脆做一个让步，先否认假设是唯一的，然后说即使唯一也不一定只有这两种可能。而你这段把这些东西混在一起写了，有点没调理。
还有就是里面有些指代不清楚。
In the second place, even if the twoassumption could be accepted, there still is (is still) a fantastic deduction. The factthat no extant historical records of the time mentioned such a flash does notjustify the assertion that there was no large meteorite collision in the time.Since the possibility that the meteorite collision happed in the day, or far away from the habitat of human exists andthe records mention such a flash may be destroyed, the fallacy of the author's deductionis apparent.
In the third place, the argument simplyequates a loud boom with the very volcanic eruption which cause the change ofweather. Firstly, the difference between a loud boom and the sound of avolcanic eruption may be so little to be clarified. Commonsense teach us thatthe sound of thunder is a loud boom which would be consistent with a volcaniceruption, therefore there was no more evidence to show how special the very loudboom is to justify it is really a sound produced by a volcanic eruption.Secondly, even if we believe that the record of a loud boom showed there was avolcanic eruption, more evidence should be given in order to justify that itwas the very volcanic eruption. If the eruption was so acuity even change the temperatureof Earth, the person who record the loud boom might suffer from the calamityand recorded it too.
后面这两段讲的也很清楚
To sum up,the argument suffers from severalfallacy. To better support the conclusion the author should make it explicitthat the two assumptions were the onlychoose and more evidence concerning volcanic eruption's record and the geologic analysis of Earth which can excludethe possibility of meteorite collision.
嗯，大家的语言都很好，我基本挑不出什么来了……
抱歉改得晚了，下午跑出去买火车票了……