Argument47 [Aero小组] 第八次作业

tonyyoreUID: 2317273

题目：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.
字数：508          用时：00:30:00          日期：2008-1-20 9:54:01

In this argument, the arguer claims that the cooling during the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. By presenting the evidence that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud that would possibly block sunlight and that no historical records of the time mention the flash that meteorite collision could create, the author rules out other possibilities beside volcanic eruption. This reasoning, however, suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the arguer fails to take into account other factors that might have lowered global temperatures. Since solar activity plays a crucial role in keeping the Earth warm, there is no evidence proving that solar activity during that period had no difference from that of other periods. Probably due to a particular solar activity, the sun radiated less heating energy to the Earth and led to a global cooling. For another thing, biological and human activities have a strong impact to the global environment. Unless the author presents more evidence concerning the abnormal solar activities and biosphere's condition during that period, his/her assertion lacks credibility.

Secondly, the author arbitrarily equates lack of evidence of meteorite collision during the mid-sixth century with substantial evidence of no meteorite collision during that time. Yet we are told nothing about how are the records reserved and the integrality of these records, an exception that the records about the collision might have been damaged is not exclusive. Since the recording instrument during the mid-sixth century lacks reliability, the records were vulnerable to any disturbance inherently. Without showing more convincing evidence proving that there was actually no meteorite collision during that period, the arguer cannot convince me of his/her assertion.

Moreover, the evidence that Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption also suffers unreliability. In the absence of proof concerning what actually created the loud boom, assuming that the boom was created by a volcanic eruption is presumptuous. Furthermore, even if there was a volcanic eruption recorded at that time, the scale and the time it lasted are absent from the arguer's evidence. Could this eruption affect the global temperature? Even a small eruption creates a loud boom, which can be heard in a short distance; while this pattern is still one of the possibilities the arguer proposes and this small eruption is impossible to have a strong impact to the global environment, how can we conclude that it was the eruption that contributed to the global cooling. The assertion itself is unreliable as it stands, since no evidence concerning this aspect is presented.

In sum, the argument is not credible due to several flaws. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should rule out other possibilities that might have led to global cooling. In addition, more specific evidence proving that no meteorite collision happened during that period and that the boom was actually created by a volcanic eruption, which might have affected the global environment effectively, is indispensable.

bigyanUID: 2382427

In this argument, the arguer claims that the cooling during the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. By presenting the evidence that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud that would possibly block sunlight and that no historical records of the time mention the flash that meteorite collision could create, the author rules out other possibilities beside volcanic eruption. This reasoning, however, suffers from several critical flaws

In the first place, the arguer fails to take into account other factors that might have lowered global temperatures. Since solar activity plays a crucial role in keeping the Earth warm, there is no evidence proving that solar activity during that period had no difference from that of other periods. Probably due to a particular solar activity, the sun radiated less heating energy to the Earth and led to a global cooling. For another thing, biological and human activities have a strong impact to the global environment. Unless the author presents more evidence concerning the abnormal solar activities and biosphere's condition during that period, his/her assertion lacks credibility.

Secondly, the author arbitrarily equates lack of evidence of meteorite collision during the mid-sixth century with substantial evidence of no meteorite collision during that time. Yet we are told nothing about how are the records reserved and the integrality of these records, an exception that the records about the collision might have been damaged is not exclusive. Since the recording instrument during the mid-sixth century lacks reliability, the records were vulnerable to any disturbance inherently. Without showing more convincing evidence proving that there was actually no meteorite collision during that period, the arguer cannot convince me of his/her assertion.

Moreover, the evidence that Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption also suffers unreliability. In （去掉in)the absence of proof concerning what actually created the loud boom, assuming that the boom was created by a volcanic eruption is presumptuous. Furthermore, even if there was a volcanic eruption recorded at that time, the scale and the time it lasted are absent from the arguer's evidence. Could this eruption affect the global temperature? Even a small eruption creates a loud boom, which can be heard in a short distance; while this pattern is still one of the possibilities the arguer proposes and this small eruption is impossible to have a strong impact to the global environment, how can we conclude that it was the eruption that contributed to the global cooling. The assertion itself is unreliable as it stands, since no evidence concerning this aspect is presented.

In sum, the argument is not credible due to several flaws. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should rule out other possibilities that might have led to global cooling. In addition, more specific evidence proving that no meteorite collision happened during that period and that the boom was actually created by a volcanic eruption, which might have affected the global environment effectively, is indispensable.
已经可以在限时内完成这样一篇文章，我觉得你的argu已经没什么问题了