Argument47 0806G加速度小组第二次作业帖

nun318UID: 2205752

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 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.

研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。

In this argument, the arguer claims that the cooling of the earth was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. At the first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat plausible, however, a close security reveals that it suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, this argument depends on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, however, as the arguer says, there is few historical records survive from that time, so just these two places’ records cannot prove that there were a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in the mid-sixth century. Without this basic assumption, the arguer cannot establish up a series of ratiocinations following.

Even assuming that a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures do indeed happen in the mid-six century, it is nevertheless unfair to infer that the global cooling was based on an insufficient sunlight. The arguer cannot provide any evidence to support the assumption that a global temperature is simply based on the sunlight. While the sunlight might be one of important contributing factors to the global temperature, it is hardly the only determining one. The arguer fails to consider a more critical factor contributes to global temperature. Commonsense informs us that global temperature is largely determined by the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In addition, it is entirely possible that the magma under the earth is not active enough or perhaps it is just a normal climate change, In short, without excluding there or other plausible explanations, the arguer cannot establish a causal relationship between global cooling and sunlight.

Even if I were to concede that the insufficient sunlight lead to the global cooling, the arguer fails to provides no firm evidence that a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could blocking enough sunlight. Even assuming that there were only there two reasons, just according to the accounts from Asia and Europe, the arguer cannot conclude that the volcanic eruption in fact lead to the cooling. Perhaps there was a flash, but no one see it for its extremely short time, or perhaps someone saw it but none recorded it. It is entirely possible that the records about the flash has gone because during such a long time. In a word, the arguer cannot exclude the possibility of the large meteorite colliding with Earth.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility in that the evidence cited in the records does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen this argument the arguer should provide more accounts found in the mid-six century. The arguer also needs to rule out other possible factors which could lead to the global cooling.

[ 本帖最后由 nun318 于 2008-1-18 10:30 编辑 ]

loogloogUID: 2447845

In this report, the arguer concluded that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this conclusion, the arguer provided some historical records and the hypothesis; yet he or she also cites some surviving Asian historical records of that time. However, there are lots of logic flaws in the process of demonstration.<br />
<br />
To begin with, the arguer involves in the fallacy of "a groundless study" when pointing out the dimming of sun and extremely cold temperatures. Only "few historical records" cannot be called evidences for the cut of the temperature. It is entirely possible that the few historical records are the imagines of the writers, which can be learned from the sure theory from papers. Or perhaps, the historians who record the temperature were living around the Arctic circle. Obviously, in these cases, the” few historical records” cannot represent the whole surrounding of whole globe, but for the unusual condition.<br />
<br />
Secondly, even if I concede that the "few historical records" is believable, the arguer also falls in a flaw of "a gratuitous assumption". When he or she mentioned that the dim sunlight can only caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite, the actually condition would be variety. The changing of the orbit of globe can also causes that kind of diming of sunlight. Perhaps, a soil storm happened at that time to bloke the sunlight. Without excluding these cases, the assumption will be gratuitous.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the arguer mentioned in the report that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash and only some Asia records mention a loud boom, while he concluded the results only by considering a volcanic eruption. The common sense tells us that the flash would last shorter time than the loud boom. When thinking over about this common sense, it is easy to discover that the large meteorite colliding can also lead to a loud boom. In order to exclude the large meteorite colliding, more information should be provided.<br />
<br />
To sum up, the arguer involves in amounts of fallacies before concluding the results. To strength the conclusion and the logic process, many information about the historic records must applied. And more assumptions should be excluded from the conclusion.





改(在星星上幻想)
In this argument, the arguer claims that the cooling of the earth was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. At the first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat plausible, however, a close security(? Around looking ) reveals that it suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, this argument depends on some accounts found both in Asia and Europe, however, as the arguer says, there is few historical records survive(ing) from that time, so just these two places’ records cannot prove that there were a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in the mid-sixth century(断句). Without this basic assumption, the arguer cannot establish up a series of ratiocinations following.

Even assuming that a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures do indeed happen in the mid-six century, it is nevertheless（anyway） unfair to infer that the global cooling was based on an insufficient sunlight. The arguer cannot provide any evidence to support the assumption that a global temperature is simply based on the sunlight. While the sunlight might be one of important contributing factors to the global temperature, it is hardly the only determining one. The arguer fails to consider a more critical factor contributes to global temperature. Common sense informs us that global temperature is largely determined by the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In addition, it is entirely possible that the magma under the earth is not active enough or perhaps it is just a normal climate change, In short, without excluding there(these) or other plausible explanations, the arguer cannot establish a causal relationship between global cooling and sunlight.

Even if I were to concede that the insufficient sunlight lead to the global cooling, the arguer fails to provides(去s) no firm evidence that a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could blocking enough sunlight. Even assuming that there were only there two reasons, just according to the accounts from Asia and Europe, the arguer cannot conclude that the volcanic eruption in fact lead to the cooling（这句话在这儿不好，削弱了连贯性）. Perhaps there was a flash, but no one see it for its extremely short time, or perhaps someone saw it but none recorded it. It is entirely possible that the records about the flash has gone because during（it lasted） such a long time. In a word, the arguer cannot exclude the possibility of the large meteorite colliding with Earth.(?? 再说一下由于撞地球有闪光和声音，可能只记录了声音  就好了 )

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility in that the evidence cited in the records does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen this argument the arguer should provide more accounts found in the mid-six century. The arguer also needs to rule out other possible factors which could lead to the global cooling.
总体很好，只是论证的细节待改进。

[ 本帖最后由 loogloog 于 2008-1-18 16:50 编辑 ]

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

In this argument, the argument concludes that the cool weather on the Earth in the mid-sixth century is caused by a volcanic eruption. In order to support the conclusion, the arguer points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth may be the reason. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

The major problem in this argument that undermines the line of reasoning is the false dilemma---- either the volcanic eruption or the meteorite colliding should account for the cool weather. The arguer ignores some other factors that may cause the temperature to fall as well. For instance, as we all know that gases such as carbon dioxide can reflect the lights come from the earth, which are the main reason for the weather which is getting warmer and warmer nowadays, however, when the amount of the carbon dioxide in the air reaches some limit, it could also reflect the lights  from the sun, which is no doubt the force to keep the environment on Earth on balance, then the Earth becomes cooler and cooler, many animals die, the ''Ice Age'' will return. We are pushed several million of years back.

Another problem worth pointing out is that the arguer fails to provide more sufficient evidence to convince us that a large meteorite collision is not the reason. Maybe the collision really exists, while in the mid-sixth century, the government in both the Asia and the Europe was dominated by aristocracy, in order to avoid a panic, they kept the affair from being known by historians and common people. It may explain why a bright flash of light is not recorded fairly well. It is also very possible that the collision happened in a large dessert or at sea in a snowy mid-night, no one was there then, so who on earth knew what happened there later. Even a schoolboy knows that we cannot conclude that something does not happen merely because nothing about it is recorded. Or maybe the records just have not been found yet.

Last but not least, the arguer also fails to present more information to show that the loud boom is one of the results of a volcanic eruption and the eruption is the reason of the cool weather then. First of all, from our common sense we know that many things happen in nature can produce a loud boom, for instance, a big earthquake and the sound of the waves collide with the beach. The meteorite colliding with Earth could also make a loud boom. We can not relate the loud boom with the volcanic eruption without other sufficient evidence. In addition, the volcanic eruption happens many times each year on Earth, but the weather does not show any inclination to become cool, we cannot conclude that only because the volcanic eruption happened in a period when the Earth was getting cooler than usual that it is the cause of it much the way we cannot conclude that the earthquakes happened in Japan in the 1930s is the reason why it took part in the Second World War.

In sum, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to produce more relevant evidence to convince us that the volcanic eruption really is the main cause of the cooling weather instead of other reasons.

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

改loogllog的
In this report, the arguer concluded（文章无特别要求一般用一般现在时） that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this conclusion, the arguer provided some historical records and the hypothesis; yet he or she also cites some surviving Asian historical records of that time. However, there are lots of（lots of 是不是太不给面子啦？ some of 会不会给人感觉好一点？） logic flaws in the process of demonstration.<br />
<br />
To begin with, the arguer involves in the fallacy of "a groundless study" when pointing out the dimming of sun and extremely cold temperatures. Only "few historical records" cannot be called evidences for the cut of the temperature. It is entirely possible that the few historical records are the imagines of the writers,（不到万不得已是不要攻击证据的真假） which can be learned from the sure theory from papers. Or perhaps, the historians who record the temperature were living around the Arctic circle.（会不会太过分了？） Obviously, in these cases, the” few historical records” cannot represent the whole surrounding of whole globe, but for the unusual condition.<br />（个人觉得题意主要不应该是攻击温度降低这个事实）
<br />
Secondly, even if I concede that the "few historical records" is believable, the arguer also falls in a flaw of "a gratuitous assumption".（应该是 false dilemma） When he or she mentioned that the dim sunlight can only （是不是该加一个be动词？）caused by a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite, the actually condition would be variety. The changing of the orbit of globe can also causes that kind of diming of sunlight. Perhaps, a soil storm happened at that time to bloke the sunlight（好原因）. Without excluding these cases, the assumption will be gratuitous.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the arguer mentioned in the report that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash and only some Asia records mention a loud boom, while he concluded the results only by considering a volcanic eruption. The common sense tells us that the flash would last shorter time than the loud boom（？传播得快不见得消失得快吧）. When thinking over about this common sense, it is easy to discover that the large meteorite colliding can also lead to a loud boom. In order to exclude the large meteorite colliding, more information should be provided.（可以再深入展开的，比如说大的声音还可能是地震之类的啊，或者为什么史料里面没有关于撞击的记载之类的，可能的原因，封锁消息啊，撞击发生在荒芜人烟的地方啦等等）<br />
<br />
To sum up, the arguer involves in amounts of fallacies before concluding the results. To strength the conclusion and the logic process, many information about the historic records must （被动，建议改为presented or produced or given）applied. And more assumptions should be excluded from the conclusion.

有什么不妥的地方在群里或着单独交流交流吧


[ 本帖最后由 雪梦无痕 于 2008-1-18 19:31 编辑 ]

kittyhelloUID: 2446997

To be a serious scientific reporter, the argument above is unqualified in that it is logically flawed in several aspects. To better present I will discussed as follows.

Firstly, to support the assertion that that Earth suddenly became significantly cooler, the only evidence that some accounts indicating in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures seems lack of persuasiveness. We may wonder what about America, Africa or other continents? Did they experience the same sharp decline in temperature? In addition, we may come to question the reliability of these accounts since no extra prescription about them has been mentioned. We don’t know whether they just came out of some sagas or legends. Without ruling out these possibilities, the assumption of the report is highly questionable.

Secondly, when explaining the cause of dramatically dimming, the argument commits a false dilemma, that is either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth held the responsible for the abnormal weather. There are no other factors or causes rendered which might lead to the coldest weather.

Thirdly, in order to prove that it was the volcanic eruption not large meteorite collision, the evidence given by the author appears to lack persuasiveness and reliability. To begin with, the author rules out the meteorite collision factor based on the specious logic reasoning that is no extant historical records of the time amounts to no occurrence at all. As known to all, not all occurrences would be recorded or not all historical would be found, yet they cannot represent that things did not happen. On the other hand, to ascertain the eruption factor, the author just relies on some surviving Asian historical records of the time which mentioned a loud boom. Do the record reliable? Were the loud boom surly consistent with a volcanic eruption, or were it just a big thunder? The author doesn’t tell, maybe he or she cannot tell due to limited evidence.

In conclusion, the evidence provided by the author seems to vogue to be meaningful. To better bolster it, I think there left to the author a huge of scientific evidence to find and researches to do.

kittyhelloUID: 2446997

In this argument, the argument concludes that the cool weather on the Earth in the mid-sixth century is caused by a volcanic eruption. In order to support the conclusion, the arguer points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth may be the reason.(the arguer analyzes the would-be reasons that is either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth.看看换个说法怎么样。 ) （However，）The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

The major problem in （of）this argument that undermines the line of reasoning is the（去掉the） false dilemma---- either the volcanic eruption or the meteorite colliding should account for the cool weather. The arguer ignores some other factors that may cause the temperature to fall as well. For instance, as we all know that gases such as carbon dioxide can reflect the lights come（coming） from the earth, which are (amount to )the main reason for the weather which is getting warmer and warmer nowadays(the increasing temperature), however, when the amount of the carbon dioxide in the air reaches some limit, it could also reflect the lights  from the sun, which is no doubt the force to keep the environment on Earth on balance, (which balances the environment on Earth)then the Earth becomes cooler and cooler, many animals die, the ''Ice Age'' will return. We are pushed several million(直接用millions觉得怎么样) of years back.（这一段例句的他因很好，我就没有想到。差点就写as an outsider呢，赫赫）

Another problem worth pointing out is that the arguer fails to provide more sufficient evidence to convince us that a large meteorite collision is not the reason (for the sharp declined temperature). Maybe the collision really exists, while in the mid-sixth century, the government in both the Asia and the Europe was dominated by aristocracy, in order to avoid a panic, they kept the affair from being known by historians and common people. (这一点说的太好了，我又没有想到～说的很具体，很好。但是我有个疑问是那个时候由政府吗？)It may explain why a bright flash of light is （was）not recorded fairly well. It is also very possible that the collision happened in a large dessert or at sea in a snowy mid-night, no one was there then, so who on earth knew what happened there later. Even a schoolboy knows that we cannot conclude that something does not happen merely because nothing about it is recorded. Or maybe the records just have not been found yet.（这段话说的很简练，很清晰，很到位！我词穷了～呵呵）

Last but not least, the arguer also fails to present more information to show that the loud boom is one of the results of a volcanic eruption and the eruption is the reason of the cool weather then. First of all, from our common sense we know that many things happen in nature can produce a loud boom, for instance, a big earthquake and the sound of the waves collide with the beach. The meteorite colliding with Earth could also make a loud boom. We can not relate the loud boom with the volcanic eruption without other sufficient evidence. In addition, the volcanic eruption happens many times each year on Earth, but the weather does not show any inclination to become cool, we cannot conclude that only because the volcanic eruption happened in a period when the Earth was getting cooler than usual that it is the cause of it much the way we cannot conclude that the earthquakes happened in Japan in the 1930s is the reason why it took part in the Second World War. （这一段基本上没有问题，佩服）

In sum, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to produce more relevant evidence to convince us that the volcanic eruption really is the main cause of the cooling weather instead of other reasons.

很好～～:victory: :victory: 路遥能把这个题目说的这么详细，实在是佩服~

[ 本帖最后由 kittyhello 于 2008-1-18 16:24 编辑 ]

xiayanshadowUID: 2374500

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption rather than a large meteorite colliding with Earth. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have caused the cooling. In addition, the arguer reasons that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash which would be created by a large meteorite collision and some records mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, this argument is base on the problematic assumption that there are only two probable reasons that may cause the cooling in the mid-sixth century, that is, either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. However, the arguer failed to convince me that there is no other possibility that may cause the cooling. For instance, maybe some important species died out, and as a result the eco-system did not function well. So the cooling may be caused by the disappearance of these important species instead of a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth.

In the second place, this argument is based on the problematic assumption that a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light and because of no extant historical records mention such a flash, the arguer exclude the chance that it is the large meteorite collision that caused the cooling. Nevertheless, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that this bright flash or light did not exist at all. Maybe this flash of light was created by a large meteorite collision, but historical records reflecting its existence do not survive till now or maybe we haven't found them yet.

What further weakens the argument is that the arguer does not provide enough evidence to prove that a volcanic eruption caused the cooling. The arguer mentions that a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. But a loud boom may have nothing to do with a volcanic eruption. This loud boom may be caused by other disasters. And the records mentioning the loud boom were only found in Asian. There were no other records found in other places. So the arguer does not convince me that the volcanic eruption caused the cooling.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should prove that no other factors may cause the cooling. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide convincing evidence that it can not be the large meteorite colliding with Earth that lead to the cooling, and the loud boom truly indicates that the cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption.

xiaoxiao022UID: 2293675

450words

The argument draws a conclusion that the cooling of Earth in the mid-sixth century is because of volcanic eruption. In order to substantiate the assertion, the argument presents several records from Asia and European about the emergence of a dimming of the sun, extremely cold temperatures, and a loud boom. The course of demonstration seems reasonable, however, there are still some serious flaws which lessen the credibility of the argument.

First of all, the argument assumes either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could create a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, which would decrease the Earth's absorption of heat from outer space hugely. Actually, perhaps other factors such as an earthquake can also form the dust cloud. Maybe the arguer is correct, but a detailed analysis or a convincing material would be necessary if making the argument convincing as it stands. Moreover, the argument simply assumes it is the dust cloud lowers the temperature. As to this point, I concede dust can stop ultraviolet radiation heating the Earth, but whether is the dust thick enough to contribute to the cooling significantly is of little evidence. In all, lacking the exact relevant data, the analysis sounds not of fairly stringency.

Secondly, because there is no extant historical record of the time mentioning a flash which may be a sign of a large meteorite collision, the argument claims the genuine cause of cooling is a volcanic eruption. No existing historical record has been found does not mean no event has happened. Perhaps the bright flash or light shined in instant at the mid-night when everyone was in deep sleep, so no one caught the event. Or perhaps the record has been handed down but happened to be lost on the way. Sweepingly equaling no record found to no flash or light happened is one critical falsity in this argument.  

Thirdly, treating some Asian historical records of a loud boom as a sign of the existence of volcanic eruption is of little foundation.  As we know, loud boom can be heard not only when volcano erupts, but earthquakes, or even meteorite collides with Earth. Besides, some volcano does not give off a huge boom when eruption. Thus, simply inferring the existence of volcanic eruption by hearing a big boom is not logical in the scientific research.

To sum up, the falsities in logic brought up weaken the reliability of the argument. Until more knowledge added to the analysis, such as the formation of dust cloud at that time, the direct linkage between cooling and volcanic eruption, and straightforward evidence showing the boom was from a volcanic eruption, can we make the volcanic eruption—cooling theory at all.

xiaoxiao022UID: 2293675

先占楼，改 越堕落越快乐

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption rather than a large meteorite colliding with Earth. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have caused the cooling. In addition, the arguer reasons that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash which would be（has been） created by a large meteorite collision and some records mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, this argument is base (based) on the problematic assumption that there are only two probable reasons that may cause the cooling in the mid-sixth century, that is, either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. (前后两遍有点重复，能不能想办法在前面说简单点)However, the arguer failed to convince me that there is no other possibility that may cause the cooling. For instance, maybe some important species died out, and as a result the eco-system did not function well. So the cooling may be caused by the disappearance of these important species instead of a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth.

In the second place, this argument is based on the problematic assumption that a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light and because of no extant historical records mention such a flash, the arguer exclude the chance that it is the large meteorite collision that caused the cooling. Nevertheless, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that this bright flash or light did not exist at all. Maybe this flash of light was created by a large meteorite collision, but historical records reflecting its existence do not survive till（感觉not …till 不太顺，是想说并没有顺利传下来吧，no historical records reflecting its existence has been successfully handed down until） now or maybe we haven't found them yet.

What further weakens the argument is that the arguer does not provide enough evidence to prove that a volcanic eruption caused the cooling. The arguer mentions that a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. But a loud boom may have nothing to do with a volcanic eruption. This loud boom may be caused by other disasters(disaster是指对人类或物种有害的，这里好像不太合适). And the records mentioning the loud boom were only found in Asian. There were no other records found in other places. (在哪找到记录好像与火山喷发对制冷的影响关系不大，因为即使局部火山喷发也会产生大量的云层，通过热量的传导可以达到cooling的效果) So the arguer does not convince me that the volcanic eruption caused the cooling.

In sum, the conclusion reached (?why reached) in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should prove that no other factors may cause the cooling. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide convincing evidence that it can not be the large meteorite colliding with Earth that lead(leading)个人感觉这里句子有点长了 to the cooling, and the loud boom truly indicates that the cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption.

结构清晰，基本找不到语法和句式上的错误，赞!

[ 本帖最后由 xiaoxiao022 于 2008-1-19 00:47 编辑 ]

jerome_huUID: 2407996

站座，改楼上的
改水目儿的：
The argument draws a conclusion that thecooling of Earth in the mid-sixth centuryis because of / was probably caused by volcaniceruption. In order to substantiate the assertion, the argument presents severalrecords from Asia and European about the emergence of a dimming of the sun,extremely cold temperatures, and a loud boom. The course of demonstration seemsreasonable, however, there are still some serious flaws which lessen thecredibility of the argument.

First of all, the argument assumes either a huge volcanic eruption or a largemeteorite colliding with Earth could create a large dust cloud throughoutEarth's atmosphere, which would decrease the Earth's absorption of heat fromouter space hugely. Actually, perhaps other factorssuch as an earthquake can also form the dust cloud.覆盖天空？开玩笑？ Maybe the arguer is correct, but a detailed analysis or aconvincing material would be necessary if making the argument convincing as itstands. Moreover, the argument simply assumes it is the dust cloud lowers thetemperature. As to this point, I concede dust can stop ultraviolet radiationheating the Earth, but whether is the dust thick enough to contribute to thecooling significantly is of little evidence. In all, lacking the exact relevantdata, the analysis sounds not of fairly stringency.

Secondly, because there is no extant historical record of the time mentioning aflash which may be a sign of a large meteorite collision, the argument claimsthe genuine cause of cooling is a volcanic eruption. No existing historicalrecord has been found does not mean no event hashappened./is scant evidence to exclude existence of meteorite colliding.用肯定句表达意见 Perhaps the bright flash or light shined in instant at the mid-nightwhen everyone was in deep sleep, so no one caught the event. Or perhaps therecord has been handed down but happened to be lost on the way. Sweepingly equaling no record found to no flash or lighthappened is one critical falsity in this argument.主语长了，是否用形式主语？  

Thirdly, treating some Asian historical records of a loud boom as a sign of theexistence of volcanic eruption is of little foundation.  As we know,loud boom can be heard not only when volcano erupts, but ALSO earthquakes, or even meteorite collides withEarth. Besides, some volcano does not give off a huge boom when eruption. Thus,simply inferring the existence of volcanic eruption by hearing a big boom is notlogical in the scientific research.

To sum up, the falsities in logic brought up/logically 是否简洁些 weakenthe reliability of the argument. Until more knowledge added to the analysis,such as the formation of dust cloud at that time, the direct linkage betweencooling and volcanic eruption, and straightforward evidence showing the boomwas from a volcanic eruption, can we make/acceptthe volcanic eruption—cooling theory at all.
你的顺序尘埃不会使地球变冷流星存在  火山不存在  
火山喷发使地球变冷，我会先说 1。地球变冷的多种原因，而不是说尘埃不会使地球变冷。
你这样否定了，陨石和火山都否定了
2 否定排出副因   一样
3  否定主因原因    一样

自己的，结尾是C+V的。。。

In the argument, the author attributes a temperaturedecline in mid-sixth century to a huge volcanic eruption. However, aftercarefully reading the evidences the author provide, the conclusion is scant anduncertain.

First of all,more possibility other than volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding contributeto the climate change. As far as I know, several assumptions exist about thecrest and trough in Sun activity, and are well supported by historicalevidence. The trough in Sun activity is sufficient evidence to explain themention dimming of sum and extremely cold temperatures, so no longer the authorcan draw his conclusion by excluding possibility of meteorite colliding fromthe either-or choices.

Even assuming that possibility limited with intwo natural revulsions and a dimming of the sun do happen in the mid-sixcentury, it is nevertheless unfair to infer that the global cooling was basedon an insufficient sunlight. The arguer failed to provide evidence that climatedecline only relies on the dimming of Sun, namely it is the determinate factor.More critical factors, like quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that contributeto global temperature. Interestingly, the vocalic eruption‘s function to thetemperature is no longer determined once we take into account carbon dioxide, themain reason for warm-house effect nowadays.

Evenif I were to concede temperate drop attributes to insufficient sunlight and ignoreof warm-house effect from carbon dioxide, evidence is scant to exclude a large meteorite collision. Many reasons canexplain, in the document, why there is no record of flash which serves toconfirm a collision existence. Perhaps record are documented but lost in theriver of time, or maybe the meteorite simply dropped into the ocean that only earthquaketook place. In sum, the arguer cannot rule out that meteorite crashing earth.

All in all ,the arguer involves in amounts offallacies before concluding the results. To strength the conclusion and thelogic process, many information about the historic records must applied. Andmore assumptions should be excluded from the conclusion.

改过的，还有些疑问先放这， 感谢‘在星星上幻想’ ，‘水目儿’

In the argument, the author attributes atemperature decline in mid-sixth century to a huge volcanic eruption. However,after cautiously reading the evidences the author provides, the conclusion isscant and uncertain.

First of all, except（加for刚才没看到） volcaniceruption or(and) a large meteoritecolliding, there are other possible factors contribute to the climate change.As far as I know, several assumptions exist about the crest and trough in Sunactivity, and are well supported by historical evidence. The trough in Sunactivity is sufficient evidence to explain the mentioned dimming of sun andextremely cold temperatures, so no longer theauthor can attribute the sharp temperature decline to possibility of meteoritecolliding and volcanic eruption.
      
Also, it is nevertheless unfair to inferthat the global cooling was based on an insufficient sunlight, even assuming that possibility limited with in twonatural revulsions and a dimming of the sun do happen in the mid-six century. Thearguer failed to provide evidence that climate decline only relies on thedimming of Sun, namely it is the determinate factor. Morecritical factors, like quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thatcontribute to global temperature. Interestingly, the vocalic eruption‘s function to the temperature is nolonger determined once we take into account carbon dioxide, the main reason forwarm-house effect nowadays.

Even if I were to concede temperate dropattributes to insufficient sunlight and ignore of warm-house effect from carbondioxide, evidence in this argument is scant to exclude a large meteoritecollision. Many reasons can explain, in the document, why there is no record offlash which serves to confirm a collision existence. Perhaps record aredocumented but lost in the river of time or maybe the meteorite simply droppedinto the ocean that so only earthquake took place. In sum, the arguer cannotrule out the critical factor that meteorite crashing earth.

All in all, thearguer involves in amounts of fallacies before concluding the results. To strength the conclusion and the logic process, many informationabout the historic records must applied. Other plausible explanations alsoshould be excluded from the conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 jerome_hu 于 2008-1-19 00:17 编辑 ]

xiayanshadowUID: 2374500

To be a serious scientific reporter, the argument above is unqualified in that it is logically flawed in several aspects. To better present I will discussed as follows.

Firstly, to support the assertion that that Earth suddenly became significantly cooler, the only evidence that some accounts indicating in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures seems lack of persuasiveness. We may wonder what about America, Africa or other continents?（這裡別用問號吧~。~！） Did they experience the same sharp decline in temperature? In addition, we may come to question the reliability of these accounts since no extra prescription about them has been mentioned. We don’t know whether they just came out of some sagas or legends. Without ruling out these possibilities, the assumption of the report is highly questionable.

Secondly, when explaining the cause of dramatically dimming, the argument commits a false dilemma, that is either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth held the responsible（是不是應該改成responsibility） for the abnormal weather. There are no other factors or causes rendered which might lead to the coldest weather. （这里可不可以想一个其他的例子出来说明什么因素捏？我是举的可能有些生物的突然绝种导致生态系统失控，造成了气候突变~。~！举个自己的例子可能会稍微好点儿）

Thirdly, in order to prove that it was the volcanic eruption not（用instead of通顺点儿） large meteorite collision, the evidence given by the author appears to lack persuasiveness and reliability. To begin with, the author rules out the meteorite collision factor based on the specious logic reasoning that is no extant historical records of the time amounts to no occurrence at all. As known to all, not all occurrences would be recorded or not all historical would be found, yet they cannot represent that things did not happen. On the other hand, to ascertain the eruption factor, the author just relies on some surviving Asian historical records of the time which mentioned a loud boom. Do the record reliable? （这种文章最好都不要用这种疑问设问或者反问句吧）Were the loud boom surly consistent with a volcanic eruption, or were it just a big thunder? The author doesn’t tell, maybe he or she cannot tell due to limited evidence.

In conclusion, the evidence provided by the author seems to vogue to be meaningful. To better bolster it, I think there left to the author a huge of scientific evidence to find and researches to do.

nun318UID: 2205752

In the argument, the author attributes a temperature decline in mid-sixth century to a huge volcanic eruption. However, after carefully（cautiously）reading the evidences the author provide（provides）, the conclusion is scant and uncertain.

First of all, more possibility other than volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding contribute to the climate change. (Except volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding, there are other possible factors contribute to the climate change) As far as I know, several assumptions exist about the crest and trough in Sun activity, and are well supported by historical evidence. (这句直接说地球温度变化跟太阳黑子活动周期有关就好) The trough in Sun activity is sufficient evidence to explain them ention（不明白这个词是什么） dimming of sum and extremely cold temperatures, so no longer the author can draw his conclusion by excluding possibility of meteorite colliding from the either-or choices.（最后一句不要只说彗星碰撞还要说火山，一下子到最后的结论跳跃太大，逻辑上不连贯，可以说只要作者排除不了其他可能性就不能仅仅将地球温度下降归因于火山爆发和彗星碰撞两种情况，这样和下一段也衔接上了）

Even assuming that possibility limited with in two natural revulsions and a dimming of the sun do happen in the mid-six century, it is nevertheless unfair to infer that the global cooling was based on an insufficient sunlight. The arguer failed to provide evidence that climate decline only relies on the dimming of Sun, namely it is the determinate factor. More critical factors, like quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that contribute to global temperature. Interestingly, the vocalic eruption‘s function to the temperature is no longer determined once we take into account carbon dioxide, the main reason for warm-house effect nowadays.这段应该放在第二段之前，然后一层一层论证，上面这两段逻辑关系不清楚

Even if I were to concede temperate drop attributes to insufficient sunlight and ignore of warm-house effect from carbon dioxide, evidence (加上in this argument) is scant to exclude a large meteorite collision. Many reasons can explain, in the document, why there is no record of flash which serves to confirm a collision existence. Perhaps record are documented but lost in the river of time（这句在时间长河里弄丢了也太文学化了，而且也容易有歧义，直接说由于年代太久远disappear了就成）or maybe the meteorite simply dropped into the ocean that （so）only earthquake took place. In sum, the arguer cannot rule out (加上the critical factor)that meteorite crashing earth.

All in all, the arguer involves in amounts off fallacies before concluding the results. To strength the conclusion and the logic process, many information about the historic records must applied. And more assumptions（Other plausible explanations） (also)should be excluded from the conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 nun318 于 2008-1-18 23:17 编辑 ]

wode56585759UID: 2305566

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: 370         TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-18 22:19:21
In this argument, the author make a conclusion that the cooling of the earth in the mid -sixth century was probably caused by the volcanic eruption. to support this conclusion the speaker offers some evidence that the extant history records of the time has the information about the volcanic eruption but the flash of the other possible cause--the meteorite collision. The author's claim has some questionable flows.
First, the scientists take the evidence that the extant history records of the time have the record of the volcanic eruption which concern to be the reason of the cooling of the earth. This can not deny the possibility of the meteorite collision which mention in the above paragraph they also have the ability to make a large dust blocking the sunlight. Perhaps the huge sudden flash only can be observed in a certain area, which may not have wise human to make a record of it. Even the ancestor indeed wrote a record of the flash about the meteorite collision they may recognize it as a part of the God action have no bravery to anger the God. Thought the record truly exist at that time whether the scientists can discovered it nor not, the language they use, as we see, maybe is just a kind of no meaning act deco to entaintament themselves after the hunting activity.
Secondly, the author does not provide us enough information about the study that many other reasons may cool the weather on the earth. Even if the less sunlightness cause of the of volcanic eruption, the atmosphere cooling may be caused by other reason. May at that time the earth planet was far away from the sun as the cause of the less sunshine. Or perhaps the low contain of the warm air make the air colder.  
In addition, the accounts found in Asia and Europe mention a dinning of the sun and extremely cold temperatures at the same time can not convince me that the alternative built a reasonablenecessity that the former causes the latter In sum, the author make a hasty conclusion basis on so limit evidence, To make it reliable the author need to provide us more information about the study of the earth cooling.