argument47 感觉算是比较难的了 大家来看看

ekintcUID: 2380428

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 47 - 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 alarge 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：491          TIME：上午 12:30:00          DATE：2007-8-30


In this argument, the author has the conclusion that the Earth's becoming significantly cooler in the mid-sixth century is due to a volcanic eruption.  To support the conclusion, the author indicates that a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, which may be caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding, would lead to the cool weather. And the author provides some evidences that there might be a volcanic eruption not a meteorite colliding. Yet, I find this argument specious on several grounds.

The first doubtful point is whether the cause of the dimming of the sun has only two possibilities which are a volcanic eruption and a meteorite colliding. It is entirely possible that the dust in the university covers the sun that causes the dimming of the sun. Or it was just a sand blown by wind which decrease the energy transited to the Earth from the sun. The author has not pointed out other possibilities that may cause the dimming of the sun, so it is unconvincing to identify with the author 's judgement.

Then the author makes an arbitrary conclusion that a meteorite colliding did not exist. To support the conclusion, the author cites that no extant records of the time mention a flash which would be created by the meteorite colliding probably. However, the author fails to recognize that no extant records does not mean no extant events. Perhaps it did happen in somewhere no people live. Maybe people who discern the event have not recorded it or they do not know how to record. Even more, it is entirely possible that people fail to survive from the meteorite colliding. The author ignores all these possibilities which makes it unwise to deny the possibility of a meteorite colliding.

Assuming that the meteorite colliding did not happen for sure,  the author makes a further conclusion that the cause of the dimming of the sun is a volcanic eruption by citing that a loud boom which would be consistent with a volcanic eruption in Asia. Yet the author fails to prove that the boom is certainly made by a volcanic eruption. Perhaps it was just a big thunder which has nothing to do with a volcanic eruption. Moreover, whether the boom really exists is still open to doubt unless the author proves the reliability of the Asian historical records. Besides, the time sequence between the dimming of the sun and the loud boom remains unknown. If the dimming of the sun happened before the loud boom, then the boom has noting to do with the dimming. The author cannot assert the existence of a volcanic eruption by such incomplete statement.

In conclusion, it is unconvincing to make a judgement that the cooling is caused by a volcanic eruption. To improve the argument, the author may cite more detailed and reliable evidences such as a volcanic eruption just before the cooling or more records from more places.

pinuoUID: 2328081

In this argument, the author has the conclusion that the Earth's becoming significantly cooler in the mid-sixth century is due to a volcanic eruption.  To support the conclusion, the author indicates that a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, which may be caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding, would lead to the cool weather. And the author provides some evidences that there might be a volcanic eruption not a meteorite colliding. Yet, I find this argument specious on several grounds.

The first doubtful point is whether the cause of the dimming of the sun has only two possibilities which are a volcanic eruption and a meteorite colliding. It is entirely possible that the dust in the university covers the sun that causes the dimming of the sun. Or it was just a sand blown by wind which decrease the energy transited to the Earth from the sun. The author has not pointed out other possibilities that may cause the dimming of the sun, so it is unconvincing to identify with the author’s judgment.

Then the author makes an arbitrary conclusion that a meteorite colliding did not exist. To support the conclusion, the author cites that no extant records of the time mention a flash which would be created by the meteorite colliding probably. However, the author fails to recognize that no extant records do not mean no extant events. Perhaps it did happen in somewhere no people live. Maybe people who discern the event have not recorded it or they do not know how to record. Even more, it is entirely possible that people fail to survive from the meteorite colliding. The author ignores all these possibilities which makes it unwise to deny the possibility of a meteorite colliding.

Assuming that the meteorite colliding did not happen for sure,  the author makes a further conclusion that the cause of the dimming of the sun is a volcanic eruption by citing that a loud boom which would be consistent with a volcanic eruption in Asia. Yet the author fails to prove that the boom is certainly made by a volcanic eruption. Perhaps it was just a big thunder which has nothing to do with a volcanic eruption. Moreover, whether the boom really exists is still open to doubt unless the author proves the reliability of the Asian historical records. Besides, the time sequence between the dimming of the sun and the loud boom remains unknown. If the dimming of the sun happened before the loud boom, then the boom has noting to do with the dimming(很细致的观点！). The author cannot assert the existence of a volcanic eruption by such incomplete statement.

In conclusion, it is unconvincing to make a judgment that the cooling is caused by a volcanic eruption. To improve the argument, the author may cite more detailed and reliable evidences such as a volcanic eruption just before the cooling or more records from more places.

咱们写的是一篇呀，你比我的写的可要好太多了，多了一个小观点。同时句式也丰富，学到了很多。读起来比我的要顺，好好向你学习。谢谢你给我的批改，有些问题自己从来就没有注意到。只是自己写没有人改的原因吧。

[ 本帖最后由 pinuo 于 2007-8-31 00:21 编辑 ]