argument47

hziu2UID: 2326409

   The editorial concludes that the earth became cooler and it was resulted by the volcanic eruption. Justify this conclusion the editorial’s author cites the fact that the accounts of a dimming of the sun and cold temperatures in few historical records in Asia and Europe. The editorial’s author also cites that two facts that cause the lower global temperatures. One is huge volcanic eruption and the other is large meteorite colliding with Earth. And the author concludes the meteorite collision and then said that the cooler temperature is resulted by the volcanic eruption. However, the author’s argument is problematic in several critical respects.
    To begin with, the argument depends on the hasty assumption that the dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures respects the trend of deducing of temperature. Maybe at that time, the weather was always cloud and the sun was always behind the cloud. So people thought the sun wasn’t brighter than before. So the author couldn’t prove that the sun was dimming at that time. And, the author said that the weather at that time was extremely cold. Maybe the weather was very cold just at that year and the climate went warm the next year. The author couldn’t give amount of accounts to prove that the lower temperature and just cite the facts mentioned before from few survive historical accounts. So the evidence the author gave can’t support for the author’s argument.
    As for the author’s claim that either the volcanic eruption or the meteorite collision causes the cooler temperatures, I still doubt that the dust created by this two facts really have so much large influence to the global temperature. The dust created by the eruption or the collision will fall down to the ground. But as the author said, the dust should run the earth and then block the sunlight all over the world. So the author’s citing the fact’s cause can’t convince me.
Just assuming that the eruption and the collision both could cause the cooler temperature, but the author concludes the collision because there is no extant historical records of the time mention sudden bright a flash. No record can’t say that there is no flash light. Maybe the sudden bright flash really existed at that time. But the historian ignored it just thinking that it was a normal. So the author makes a hasty conclusion that the cooler temperature was resulted by the big volcanic eruption
     In sum, the editorial relies on a potentially weak analogy as well as on unwarranted claims. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more evidence that the temperature really went down, the eruption and collision really a major cause of cooler temperature and the collision really couldn’t happen.

m2zhyUID: 2440721

The editorial concludes that the earth became cooler and it was resulted by the volcanic eruption. Justify this conclusion the editorial’s author cites the fact that the accounts(去掉) of a dimming of the sun and cold temperatures in few historical records in Asia and Europe. The editorial’s author also cites that(去掉) two facts that cause the lower global temperatures. One is huge volcanic eruption and the other is large meteorite colliding with Earth. And the author concludes(此处用法不妥) the meteorite collision and then said that the cooler temperature is resulted by the volcanic eruption. However, the author’s argument is problematic in several critical respects.   

To begin with, the argument depends on the hasty assumption that the dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures respects the trend of deducing of temperature (没看懂！). Maybe at that time, the weather was always cloud and the sun was always behind the cloud. So people thought the sun wasn’t brighter than before. So the author couldn’t prove that the sun was dimming at that time. And, the author said that the weather at that time was extremely cold. Maybe the weather was very cold just at that year and the climate went warm the next year. The author couldn’t give amount of accounts(sufficient evidence更合适些) to prove that(the cause of替换) the lower temperature and just cite(改成fail to support the conclusion just by citing) the facts mentioned before(above) from few survive historical accounts. So the evidence the author gave can’t support for the author’s argument.

As for the author’s claim that either the volcanic eruption or the meteorite collision causes the cooler temperatures, I still doubt that the dust created by this two facts really have so much large influence to the global temperature. The dust created by the eruption or the collision will fall down to the ground. But as the author said, the dust should run the earth and then block the sunlight all over the world. So the author’s citing the fact’s cause(改成the fact which the author cites) can’t convince me.

Just assuming that the eruption and the collision both could cause the cooler temperature, but the author concludes the collision because there is no extant historical records of the time mention sudden bright a flash. No record can’t say that there is no flash light. (这句话太汉语化了，建议句子：It is unfair to assert that there is no flash just because of no records about it exist. ) Maybe the sudden bright flash really existed at that time. But the historian ignored it just thinking that it was a normal. So the author makes a hasty conclusion that the cooler temperature was resulted by the big volcanic eruption

In sum, the editorial relies on a potentially weak analogy(analysis) as well as on unwarranted claims. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more evidence that the temperature really went down, the eruption and collision really a major cause of cooler temperature and the collision really couldn’t happen.

已经看过了楼主的Issue，很“托”~
总评：
      还是那句话，楼主的作文太“托福”了。离分析性质的G作文还有距离。
      关于遣词造句，我就不多说了，楼主还要加把劲，去掉托福的影子，换上G的新装。
      就内容和结构而言：楼主基本上抓住了Argument的要点，找到的驳论点比较准确，只是力度欠缺了。
      建议楼主还是先多看些范文吧，在没有弄明白G作文对于语言的要求前，急于写作，可能会适得其反。建议有空先看看长句。会写长句基本已是写G作文的潜前提了。

[ 本帖最后由 m2zhy 于 2008-1-25 00:41 编辑 ]