Argument47[aero-eight]

houyanchunUID: 2432949

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.

In this argument, the author claims that the cooling of the earth in the mid-sixth century caused by a volcanic eruption rather than the meteorite collision. To support his claim, the author cites that the large meteorite collision would produce a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. And the author cites the evidence that there is record about a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic. The evidence seems reasonable at first sight, however, there are some fallacies in them.
First of all, the author fails to consider other alternatives to the cooling temperature of the earth. It is entirely possible that the reasons of lower temperature is attributed to the changing of the atmosphere, then produces a huge hurricane to destroy the climate of whole earth so that the temperature is lower than before. The author could not offer relative evidence to explain there are only two alternatives to demonstrate the reason of lower temperature, the claim is poor credible.
Secondly, the record about a loud boom lends little support to the claim. Firstly, the record which is written by some Asian historians could be limited by the geography so that they only record the loud boom which happened in Asian or in some parts of Asian. That is to say, the record could not represent the whole situation of the world in the time. Even if the record could demonstrate that there are a loud boom appearing in the overall earth, it could be assumed that the loud boom has leaded to the lower temperature directly. The author could not provide relative evidence to explain the volcanic eruption is sufficient strength to change the temperature of overall earth so that the claim is worth to doubting.
Finally, the evidence that without the record of the meteorite collision does not mean that there is no possibility of existence. It is possible that the record is lost for passing the long time or there is no time for historians to record the collision when it happened so that the relative record could be handed down. For that matter, the claim is opened to doubt.
In sum, the claim is unpersuasive as it stands. In order to improve the argument, the author should provide more evidence that there are only two possibilities to explain the cooling temperature and the record is worth to believing. Furthermore, there is not indeed record to document the collision had happened.

saavedroUID: 2423190

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.

In this argument, the author claims that the cooling of the earth in the mid-sixth century caused by a volcanic eruption rather than the meteorite collision. To support his claim, the author cites that the large meteorite collision would produce a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. And the author cites the evidence that there is record about a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic. The evidence seems(to analyze) reasonable at first sight(这个比较创新，我还是第一次见）, however, there are some fallacies in them.（这句话不建议这么写，还是传统写法吧，....in this argument.
First of all, the author fails to consider other alternatives to（for) the cooling temperature of the earth. It is entirely possible that the reasons of lower temperature is attributed to the changing of the atmosphere, then produces(generates/comes about) a huge hurricane to destroy the climate of whole earth so that the temperature is lower than (it)before. The author could not offer relative evidence to explain there are only two alternatives(alternative explanations和前面用词区别开来) to demonstrate the reason of lower temperature, (therefore/so )the claim is poor credible.(这里过于简单了，建议还是改改)
Secondly, the record about a loud boom lends little support to the claim. Firstly, the record which is written by some Asian historians could be limited by the geography（不是地理，应该是地理因素：discrepancy of geographic factors ） so that they only record the loud boom which happened in Asian or in some parts(partial regions in) of Asian. That is to say(这个短语用的好！！！= in other words), the record could not represent the whole situation of the world in the（ancient era） time. Even if the record could demonstrate that there are a loud boom appearing in the overall earth, it could be assumed that the loud boom has(had) leaded to the lower temperature directly. The author could not provide relative evidence to explain the volcanic eruption is sufficient strength to change the temperature of overall earth so that the claim is worth to doubting.（楼主不定式使用的太多了，可以尝试换换其他衔接介词）
Finally, the evidence that without the record of the meteorite collision does not mean that there is no possibility of existence.（什么的存在？） It is possible that the record is lost for passing the long time（the long time has passed.） or there is no time for historians to record the collision when it happened so that the relative record could be handed down（精品词组！！）. For that matter,（for that matter 是另一方面来说，不是总结性短语？） the claim is opened to doubt.(there be句型使用的太多了，还是要用为好 改成It is 都要好一些)
In sum, the claim is unpersuasive as it stands. In order to improve（不是改善，应该是strengthen // solidify） the argument, the author should provide more evidence that there are only two possibilities to explain the cooling temperature and the record is worth to believing. Furthermore, there is not indeed record to document the collision had happened.


楼主文章中 There be 句型使用的太多了， GRE写作里忌讳使用过多的There be句型 建议还是多看看北美范文模仿去写吧。另外感觉语言上面不是很成熟。有一种四六级写作的感觉？？、 呵呵 楼主再接再厉努力加油。11！