Argument47 【Aero小组】第8次作业

可乐加冰84UID: 2221571

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: 472          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-1-24 15:01:29

In this argument, the article's author concludes that a volcanic eruption, happened several centuries ago, caused the cooling of the earth. To justify this conclusion the author points out that either the huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding could low global temperatures dramatically, and that some surviving accounts, recorded in the mid-sixth century, mention a loud boom which could be created by a volcanic eruption. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.

First of all, the argument has not provided clear evidences to prove that only volcanic eruption or meteorite can cause the significant falling of the earth’s temperatures. The author might neglect some other aspects which also have the same effect to the earth’s temperatures. Perhaps an unusual movement of the star in universe, happened in several years ago, impacted the movement of sun and dimmed the sun. Or perhaps some unknown changes of the earth effect the earth's climate. In any event, lacking clear and convincing evidences that can prove only these two situations, said in the argument, can cause the earth climate dramatically, the editorial's author cannot convince me as it stands.

Secondly, even if only these two reasons can explain the Earth's temperatures falling, it would be hasty to infer that meteorite colliding did not happen based merely upon the fact that no historical accounts recorded the sudden bright flash of light which would be created with the meteorite colliding. Perhaps there are no one had seen the sudden bright when the meteorite collided. Or perhaps some people had seen the sudden bright flash of light; however, they did not record that unbelievable light. If so, then the article's author would neglect the possibility of meteorite colliding, though the unconvincing evidences.

Finally, even assuming the meteorite colliding did not happen, the author has not shown any correlation between the loud boom and a volcanic eruption. It is entirely possible that other unknown things, happened in that time, caused the loud boom. And the author has also not shown any cause-and-effect between the loud boom and temperatures changing. Perhaps there are other aspects caused the earth's temperature falling significant, in fact the loud might be no relationship with the Earth’s climate changing. Without better evidence that prove the loud boom has a clear relationship with the climate changing, it might be a folly to believe the author's conclusion.

In sum, this argument relies on several pool assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the article's author must provide clear evidences that only meteorite colliding or volcanic eruption can cause the temperatures change happened in the mid-sixth century, and that meteorite colliding did not happen in that time. The author must also show that the loud boom which has been created by a volcanic eruption has a relationship with the earth's temperature falling.

liuyingbnuUID: 2321970

In this argument, the article's author concludes that a volcanic eruption, happened(这个词没有被动语态happening) several centuries ago, caused the cooling of the earth. To justify this conclusion the author points out that either the huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding could low global temperatures dramatically, and that some surviving accounts, recorded in the mid-sixth century, mention a loud boom which could be created by a volcanic eruption. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.
最近在看寄托上的一些帖子，讲这种restate的开头，没有必要。传说pooh的经典开头被e-rater判为没有thesis。有空去搜索来看看吧。
First of all, the argument has not provided clear evidences(这个是不可名词) to prove that only volcanic eruption or meteorite can cause(s) the significant falling of the earth’s temperatures. The author might neglect some other aspects which also have the same effect to the earth’s temperatures. Perhaps an unusual movement of the star in universe, happened(同上) in several years ago, impacted the movement of sun and dimmed the sun. Or perhaps some unknown changes of the earth effect the earth's climate.（这个最好和上面那个一样具体地说出来） In any event, lacking clear and convincing evidences that can prove only these two situations, said in the argument, can cause the earth climate dramatically, the editorial's author cannot convince me as it stands.
最近看了不少范文，发现body部分论证的力度就是体现在具体地分析上，general statement并不十分关键。能够说清楚地，更深入一下更好。

Secondly, even if only these two reasons can explain the Earth's temperatures falling, it would be hasty to infer that meteorite colliding did not happen based merely upon the fact that no historical accounts recorded the sudden bright flash of light which would be created with the meteorite colliding. Perhaps there are no one had seen the sudden bright when the meteorite collided. Or perhaps some people had seen the sudden bright flash of light; however, they did not record that unbelievable light. If so, then the article's author would neglect the possibility of meteorite colliding, though the unconvincing evidences.

Finally, even assuming the meteorite colliding did not happen, the author has not shown any correlation between the loud boom and a volcanic eruption. It is entirely possible that other unknown things（什么，最好说出来举例，比如earthquake, tsunami）, happened in that time, caused the loud boom. And the author has also not shown any cause-and-effect between the loud boom and temperatures changing. Perhaps there are other aspects caused the earth's temperature falling significant(ly), in fact the loud might be(have) no relationship with the Earth’s climate changing. Without better evidence that prove the loud boom has a clear relationship with the climate changing, it might be a folly to believe the author's conclusion.

In sum, this argument relies on several pool assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the article's author must provide clear evidences that only meteorite colliding or volcanic eruption can cause the temperatures change happened in the mid-sixth century, and that meteorite colliding did not happen in that time. The author must also show that the loud boom which has been created by a volcanic eruption has a relationship with the earth's temperature falling.
文章错误抓得很准确，内在逻辑也比较清楚。有一定的说服了。
只是觉得开头和结尾稍微长了些，对于argument仅有的30min，我们应该把精力放在中间段落，再展开、再深入，毕竟argument更好拿分不是。这也是我这几天学习范文和后面的评语的心得！加油加油！