"为我所用"小组第六次作业argument47

rienziUID: 2402391

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: 273          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-3-29 23:19:01



    The aruger tells that the earth became cooler in the mid-sixth century. The phenomenon is found by scientists. Through a meditation of many facts and reasonings, the arguer gives us his own explanation of the cooling. He concludes that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. After a careful scrutiny of his reasons, it is not difficult to pick up some fatal fallacies from his discussion.
    Firstly, the arguer failed to convince us that the dimming of sun that had been recorded in the mid-sixth is directly caused by volcanic eruption or large meteorite colliding. There are many other factors that can cause the loss of brilliance of the sun. For instance, an eclipse. Because the arguer did not give us any detail of those few historical records, we do not know how long did the dimming was. For this reason, the specific reason for the dimming of the sun and cold temperature is unknown.
    Secondly, even if the cold weather of that time was caused by volcanic eruption or a collision between a large meteorite and the earth, we can not conclude that which of the two catastrophes appeared by the arguer's reason. There is no records about a flash in the mid-sixth century. It does not mean that a flash did not appear at that time. Given that the historical records are not sufficient, it is highly likely that a collision happened but it was not recorded by people at that time. And for the same reason, the loud boom record does not automatically mean that a volcanic eruption happened.
    Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is ineffictive.




没写完,
分析用了太长时间,
曰

[ 本帖最后由 rienzi 于 2008-3-31 19:02 编辑 ]

bitdxcUID: 2465290

The arguer tells that the earth became cooler in the mid-sixth century. The phenomenon is found by scientists. Through a meditation of many facts and reasoning, the arguer gives us his own explanation of the cooling. He concludes that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. After a careful scrutiny of his reasons, it is not difficult to pick up some fatal fallacies from his discussion.

Firstly, the arguer failed to convince us that the dimming of sun that had been recorded in the mid-sixth is directly caused by volcanic eruption or large meteorite colliding. There are many other factors that can cause the loss of brilliance of the sun. For instance, an eclipse. Because the arguer did not give us any detail of those few historical records, we do not know how long the dimming did was. For this reason, the specific reason for the dimming of the sun and cold temperature is unknown.

Secondly, even if the cold weather of that time was caused by volcanic eruption or a collision between a large meteorite and the earth, we can not conclude that which of the two catastrophes appeared by the arguer's reason. There are no records about a flash in the mid-sixth century. It does not mean that a flash did not appear at that time. Given that the historical records are not sufficient, it is highly likely that a collision happened but it was not recorded by people at that time. And for the same reason, the loud boom record does not automatically mean that a volcanic eruption happened.

Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is ineffective.
评价：
开头不错，较为新颖，基本找出了文中所有的逻辑错误，批驳有力，希望下次能够看到完整的文章。

usayaUID: 2374023

The arguer tellsthat the earth became cooler in the mid-sixth century. The phenomenonis found by scientists. Through a meditation of many facts andreasoning, the arguer gives us his own explanation of the cooling. Heconcludes that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.After a careful scrutiny of his reasons, it is not difficult to pick upsome fatal fallacies from his discussion.

Firstly(没有这种用法的,切记,First or First of all), thearguer failed to convince us that the dimming of sun that had beenrecorded in the mid-sixth is directly caused by volcanic eruption orlarge meteorite colliding. There are many other factors that can causethe loss of brilliance of the sun. For instance, an eclipse. Becausethe arguer did not give us any detail of those few historical records,we do not know how long the dimming did was. For this reason, thespecific reason for the dimming of the sun and cold temperature isunknown.

Secondly, evenif the cold weather of that time was caused by volcanic eruption or acollision between a large meteorite and the earth, we can not concludethat which of the two catastrophes appeared by the arguer's reason.There are no records about a flash in the mid-sixth century. It doesnot mean that a flash did not appear at that time. Given that thehistorical records are not sufficient, it is highly likely that acollision happened but it was not recorded by people at that time. Andfor the same reason, the loud boom record does not automatically meanthat a volcanic eruption happened.

Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is ineffective.


这两段的总体上没有问题,时间上不够没关系,我还是希望能看到你完整的文章,完整的写好以后记得给我拍拍