ARGUMENT47 【Aero小组】第8次作业

lovemxfUID: 2335206

Argument47  第3篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：22分51秒     395 words
从2008年0月23日14时27分到2008年0月23日14时22分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
The arguer makes a conclusion that the cold weather of earth in the mid-sixth century was attributed to a volcanic eruption rather than meteorite collision.   To support the argument the arguer provide the evidence that there is no extant historical records of that time mentioning the phenomenon that relates to meteorite colliding with earth. But there are recorders mentioning a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. It seems to be reasonable at first glance, but the argument is questionable with illogical reasoning.
First, the arguer unfairly concludes that no evidence about a flash means the meteorite not colliding with the earth. That might not be the case. Many explanations could illustrate it. It is possible that there are records in the world which are still not found or were damaged for natural factors or human behavior factors. It is also possible that the collision happened in the areas where no human being lived such as Antarctica or some oceans. If so, the conclusion might surely incorrect.  
Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that the loud boom is the boom of the volcanic eruption. We do not know the ancient people could distinguish the sounds between volcanic eruption and other boom. Many phenomena could produce a loud boom therefore we do not know whether it is the boom of volcanic eruption. Even if it was the sound of the volcanic eruption, the recording one could not be ensured that the boom was the one which resulted in the cold weather. Perhaps it produced by the erupting volcano but is not the one which did cause the cold weather.  Without considering these possibilities, the arguer could not draw the conclusion that the boom is the one relevant to the colder weather.
Thirdly, the arguer could not lend support to the conclusion because there are only two circumstances about the cold weather. It may be other reasons for the cold weather, which the arguer does not consider it. It might cause by the normal climate changing or other possibilities. Without ruling out other reasons, the arguer's conclusion is weak.
To sum up, the argument is unwarranted for poor reasoning. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more evidence to prove the conclusion and exclude other possibilities. And the arguer should also research more to make sure it is the final reason.
10 chu

victkidUID: 2326283

The arguer makes a conclusion that the cold weather of earth in the mid-sixth century was attributed to a volcanic eruption rather than meteorite collision.   To support the argument the arguer provide the evidence that there is no extant historical records of that time mentioning the phenomenon that relates to meteorite colliding with earth. But there are recorders mentioning a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. It seems to be reasonable at first glance, but the argument is questionable with illogical reasoning.First, the arguer unfairly concludes that no evidence about a flash means the meteorite not colliding with the earth. That might not be the case. Many explanations could illustrate it. It is possible that there are records in the world which are still not found or were damaged for natural factors or human behavior factors. It is also possible that the collision happened in the areas where no human being lived such as Antarctica or some oceans. If so, the conclusion might surely incorrect.  Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that the loud boom is the boom of the volcanic eruption. We do not know whether the ancient people could distinguish the sounds between volcanic eruption and other boom. Many phenomena could produce a loud boom therefore we do not know whether it is the boom of volcanic eruption. boom这个词感觉在这里用得太多了 Even if it was the sound of the volcanic eruption, the recording one could not be ensured that the boom was the one which resulted in the cold weather. Perhaps it produced by the erupting volcano but is not the one which did cause the cold weather.  Without considering these possibilities, the arguer could not draw the conclusion that the boom is the one relevant to the colder weather.Thirdly, the arguer could not lend support to the conclusion because there are only two circumstances about the cold weather. It may be other reasons for the cold weather, which the arguer does not consider it 改成about. It might cause by the normal climate changing or other possibilities. Without ruling out other reasons, the arguer's conclusion is weak.To sum up, the argument is unwarranted for poor reasoning. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more evidence to prove the conclusion and exclude other possibilities. And the arguer should also research more to make sure it is the final reason.

ARGU不错，用词和论证比ISSUE都要好。很流畅， 没有大的问题需要改进的地方。
在词语变换上下一些功夫就更好了。

ragingfireUID: 186932

The arguer makes a conclusion that the cold weather of earth in the mid-sixth century was attributed to a volcanic eruption rather than meteorite collision.   To support the argument the arguer provides the evidence that there is no extant historical records of that time mentioning the phenomenon that relates to meteorite colliding with earth. But there are recorders mentioning a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. It seems to be reasonable at first glance, but the argument is questionable with illogical reasoning.开头不错，很简洁也很到位
First, the arguer unfairly concludes that no evidence about a flash means the meteorite not colliding with the earth. That might not be the case. Many explanations could illustrate it. It is possible that there are records in the world which are still not found or were damaged for natural factors or human behavior factors. It is also possible that the collision happened in the areas where no human being lived such as Antarctica or some oceans. If so, the conclusion might be surely incorrect.  这段ok
Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that the loud boom is the boom of the volcanic eruption. We do not know thewhether ancient people could distinguish the sounds between volcanic eruption and other boom. Many phenomena could produce a loud boom therefore we do not know whether it is the boom of volcanic eruption. Even if it was the sound of the volcanic eruption, the recording one could not be ensured that the boom was the one which resulted in the cold weather. Perhaps it produced by the erupting volcano but is not the one which did cause the cold weather.  Without considering these possibilities, the arguer could not draw the conclusion that the boom is the one relevant to the colder weather.这段也没问题，就是如kid所说boom多了点，建议使用其它代词
Thirdly, the arguer could not lend support to the conclusion because there are only two circumstances about the cold weather. It may be other reasons for the cold weather, which the arguer does not consider itabout. It might be caused by the normal climate changing or other possibilities. Without ruling out other reasons, the arguer's conclusion is weak.
To sum up, the argument is unwarranted for poor reasoning. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more evidence to prove the conclusion and exclude other possibilities. And the arguer should also research more to make sure it is the final reason.
不错的文章，和我写的结构一模一样，呵呵。只用了二十多分钟，高人啊！

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

The arguer makes a conclusion that the cold weather of earth in the mid-sixth century was attributed to a volcanic eruption rather than meteorite collision.   To support the argument the arguer provide the evidence that there is no extant historical records of that time mentioning the phenomenon that relates to meteorite colliding with earth. But there are recorders mentioning a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. It seems to be reasonable at first glance, but the argument is questionable with illogical reasoning.开头不错！

First, the arguer unfairly concludes that no evidence about a flash means the meteorite not colliding with the earth. That might not be the case. Many explanations could illustrate it. It is possible that there are records in the world which are still not found or were damaged for natural factors or human behavior factors. It is also possible that the collision happened in the areas where no human being lived such as Antarctica or some oceans. If so, the conclusion might be surely incorrect. 这段没有什么问题^_^  

Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that the loud boom is the boom of the volcanic eruption. We do not know the ancient people could distinguish the sounds between volcanic eruption and other boom. Many phenomena could produce a loud boom 要加上and，因为therefore是副词不是连词 therefore we do not know whether it is the boom of volcanic eruption. Even if it was the sound of the volcanic eruption, the recording one could not be ensured that the boom was the one which resulted in the cold weather. Perhaps it produced by the erupting volcano but is not the one which did cause the cold weather.  个人觉得这里有点离开了这段的论证中心，如果作者想在这里论证了这点，不如就把开头的TS该得范围大一点，可以包括这个内容 Without considering these possibilities, the arguer could not draw the conclusion that the boom is the one relevant to the colder weather.

Thirdly, the arguer could not lend support to the conclusion because there are only two circumstances about the cold weather. It may be other reasons for the cold weather, which the arguer does not consider it. It might cause by the normal climate changing or other possibilities. Without ruling out other reasons, the arguer's conclusion is weak.在Secondly里面也提到了火山喷发可能不是导致天气变冷的原因，相当于跟这一段重复了，建议稍微改改内容编排

To sum up, the argument is unwarranted for poor reasoning. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more evidence to prove the conclusion and exclude other possibilities. And the arguer should also research more to make sure it is the final reason.

作者的写作速度不是一般快啊，而且整体文章安排的不错！学习了～