ARGUMENT47 【Aero小组】第8次作业

ragingfireUID: 186932

第一次写Argument，憋了半天，差点晕掉。。。




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: 441          TIME: 01:06:13          DATE: 2008-1-25 13:44:31

    In this argument the arguer claims that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support the claim, the arguer points out that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption is recorded. The arguer further states that a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures mentioned in the records can be results of a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding. However, close scrutiny of these evidence reveals that none of them lend reliable support to the argument.
    First, the fact that no extant historical records which mention a bright flash of light do not necessarily indicate that there was no meteorite colliding of the time. Perhaps there were records but as the arguer states, they were not able to survive from that time. Or perhaps these records exist at the moment but the arguer fails to find them. Even if it is true that no one wrote down the flash, the possibility of meteorite colliding still cannot be ruled out. Perhaps people of that time considered the flash of light as lightening and did not take them serious. Or perhaps the colliding happened in a sparsely populated area such as the Antarctic so no one saw the flash. Without ruling out these possibilities the arguer cannot convince me on the basis to them that the cooling is not caused by a meteorite colliding.
    Secondly, the fact that a loud boom mentioned in the records in some Asian historical records accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the argument. Many things can cause a loud boom, like thunders or earthquakes. So maybe the boom has nothing to do with the volcanic eruption. Even if the boom was actually produced by a volcanic eruption, it is absurd to assert the cooling was caused by the eruption. The argument contains no evidence that the cooling was after the eruption. Maybe the cooling had already started when the eruption happened. Either Scenario mentioned above would undermine the argument.
    Thirdly, the argument makes a "false dilemma" fallacy. Although the cooling was not the result of a meteorite colliding, it can also be credited for other reasons, such as the natural activity of the global atmosphere or the coming of another ice-age, other than the volcanic eruption. The author fails to take into account all these reasons and makes the argument vulnerable.
    In sum, the argument relies on certain doubtful assumptions and overlooks some possibilities that render it unconvincing as it stands. To substantiate it, the arguer needs to rule out other situations which might cause the cooling, and provide concrete evidence that the volcanic eruption did happen before the cooling.
   

lovemxfUID: 2335206

In this argument the arguer claims that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support the claim, the arguer points out that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption is（was） recorded. The arguer further states that a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures mentioned in the records can be results of a volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding这个没有记录而是有可能导致寒冷的原因. However, close scrutiny of these evidence reveals that none of them lend reliable support to the argument.    First, the fact that no extant historical records which mention a bright flash of light do not necessarily indicate that there was no meteorite colliding of the time. Perhaps there were records but as the arguer states, they were not able to survive from that time. Or perhaps these records exist at the moment but the arguer fails to find them. Even if it is true that no one wrote down the flash, the possibility of meteorite colliding still cannot be ruled out. Perhaps people of that time considered the flash of light as lightening and did not take them serious. Or perhaps the colliding happened in a sparsely populated area such as the Antarctic so no one saw the flash. Without ruling out these possibilities the arguer cannot convince me on the basis to them that the cooling is not caused by a meteorite colliding.这段论证的不错，很充分，不过我觉的就是罗嗦了点，可以简练点这样可以节约时间。    Secondly, the fact that a loud boom mentioned in the records in some Asian historical records accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the argument. Many things can cause a loud boom, like thunders or earthquakes. So maybe the boom has nothing to do with the volcanic eruption. Even if the boom was actually produced by a volcanic eruption, it is absurd to assert the cooling was caused by the eruption. The argument contains no evidence that the cooling was after the eruption. Maybe the cooling had already started when the eruption happened. Either Scenario mentioned above would undermine the argument.这段也很好没问题。    Thirdly, the argument makes a "false dilemma" fallacy. Although the cooling was not the result of a meteorite colliding, it can also be credited for这句话是什么意思不是很明白应该also due to就可以 other reasons, such as the natural activity of the global atmosphere or the coming of another ice-age, other than the volcanic eruption. The author fails to take into account all these reasons and makes the argument vulnerable.    In sum, the argument relies on certain doubtful assumptions and overlooks some possibilities that render it unconvincing as it stands. To substantiate it, the arguer needs to rule out other situations which might cause the cooling, and provide concrete evidence that the volcanic eruption did happen before the cooling.

总体来说写的已经很不错了，在精炼一点就更好了。这样可以在30分钟内完成。

希望回拍：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-793247-1-1.html