argument47 [kb9.11] 第6次作业

对酒当歌UID: 2210051

The writer assertsthat, the earth suddenly became significantly cooler in the mid-six century. Tosupport the conclusion, the writer cites some ancient accounts found both inAsia and Europe. The writer further asserts that,the reason why the earth suddenly became significantly cooler in the mid-sixcentury was a volcanic eruption, not meteorite colliding with Earth , because Somesurviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that wouldbe consistent with a volcanic eruption. At the first glance the writer’sstandpoint is reasonable, but analyzing deeply, we will find it not soconvincing the argument had flawed in several critical respects.

First, the authenticityof the discovery is dubious. Because it is based on the some accounts found inAsia and Europe. But we can not ruler out thepossibility that it is only happed locally—though it is found both in Asia and Europe. As there is not enough information about theplaces whose temperature had fallen, such as thelatitude, the altitude, and so forth, we cantotally assume that in the place of Asia, the extremely cold temperatures isexceptional while in another place in Europe it is only a natural phenomenon.So, the falling of the temperature may not be worldwide. Lacing evidence, theassertion that earth in the mid-sixth century suddenly became significantlycooler is hard to stand.

Second,even the falling of the temperature had indeed happened, it is hasty for thewriter to assert that, either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collidingwith Earth could have created a large dust cloud throughoutEarth'satmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lowerglobal temperatures significantly. We don not know whether there is otherreasons, for there is not any data to show the amounts of the dust in theatmosphere. Nor the relationship between the dust in atmosphere and the fallingof the temperature had been studied. So, we can not rule out otherpossibilities which can result in the falling of the temperature.

Third, asthe writhe mentioned, the volcanic eruption created a large sum of dust, andthe dust further resulted in the falling of the temperature. But had the dustcreated by volcanic eruption? The reason given by the writer is alarge meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light,but no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Some survivingAsian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boom that wouldbe consistent with a volcanic eruption. Does it mean there was not any meteoritecollision since there is no related record? Of course not, and meanwhile, the loudboom does not have any causal association with volcanic eruption—unless therecorder had sawn it with his/her own eyes.

In sum, the argument is hasty because the lacking of evidence. To convincethe reader, the write should get more information to prove the existence of thetemperature falling. On the other hand, further study about the relationshipbetween dust and the temperature falling. More over, further investigation isnecessary to prove it was the vocalic eruption that had created huge sums ofdust.  

perfumedewUID: 2381489

The writer asserts that, the earth suddenly became significantly cooler in the mid-six century. To support the conclusion, the writer cites some ancient accounts found both inAsia and Europe. The writer further asserts that,the reason why the earth suddenly became significantly cooler in the mid-sixcentury was a volcanic eruption, not meteorite colliding with Earth , because Somesurviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that wouldbe consistent with a volcanic eruption. At the first glance the writer’sstandpoint is reasonable, but analyzing deeply, we will find it not so convincing the argument had flawed in several critical respects.

First, the authenticity of the discovery is dubious. Because it is based on the(the去掉) some accounts found inAsia and Europe. But we can not ruler(rule) out the possibility that it is only happed(查了一下，hap有偶然发生的意思， 但这句话有点没懂） locally—though it is found both in Asia and Europe. As there is not enough information about the places whose temperature had fallen, such as the latitude, the altitude, and so forth, we can totally assume that in the place of Asia, the extremely cold temperatures is exceptional while in another place in Europe it is only a natural phenomenon. So, the falling of the temperature may not be worldwide. Lacing the evidence, the assertion that earth in the mid-sixth century suddenly became significantly cooler is hard to stand.

Second,even the falling of the temperature had indeed happened, it is hasty for the writer to assert that, either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collidingwith 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. We don not know whether there is other reasons, for there is not any data to show the amounts of the dust in the atmosphere. Nor the relationship between the dust in atmosphere and the fallingof the temperature had been studied. So, we can not rule out other possibilities which can result in the falling of the temperature.

Third, as the writher mentioned, the volcanic eruption created a large sum of dust, and the dust further resulted in the falling of the temperature. But had the dust created by volcanic eruption? The reason given by the writer is (that)a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light,but 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 wouldbe consistent with a volcanic eruption. Does it mean there was not any meteorite collision since there is no related record? ( 原因最好说出来，如缺失，或还没发现等等)Of course not, and meanwhile, the loudboom does not have any causal association with volcanic eruption—unless the recorder had sawn it with his/her own eyes.

In sum, the argument is hasty because the lacking of evidence. To convince the reader, the write should get more information to prove the existence of the temperature falling. On the other hand, further study about the relationshipbetween dust and the temperature falling. More over, further investigation is necessary to prove it was the vocalic eruption that had created huge sums ofdust.


思路是对的，但感觉复述原文是不是似乎有点多？
论证应该多说说原因才好吧，不是只要说出肯定有其他原因就行了
继续努力，加油！

[ 本帖最后由 perfumedew 于 2007-8-22 00:16 编辑 ]