Agument47 Liquidshile--Hamming组 欢迎批评！！

liquidshileUID: 2254332

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.
********************************************************
outline:
1. no records survived is not indicate that a large meteorite collision did not happen.
2. the author assumes that the extant records of a loud boom is consisitent with a volcanic eruption which would be the reason of cooling in mid-sixth century.
3. the author ignores other alternative possibilities of the weather change.
********************************************************
[ Words 500  Date 2006-11-28 ]

In this argument, the author concludes that in the mid-sixth century the suddenly decline of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To justify this conclusion the author cites a series of evidences, however, careful consideration of these facts reveals that they lends little credibility to the argument.

First, the author concludes too hastily that large meteorite collision did not happen in mid-sixth century because there is no historical records about a sudden bright flash which was probably created by the large meteorite collision of this time survived now. However, there is few extant historical records, as the author mentions, it is entirely possible that a meteorite collision happened in mid-sixth but the records about it lost. Without taking into account this possibilities, the author cannot persuade us that there is no large meteorite in mid-sixth century.

Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that a loud boom which was mentioned in extant Asian historical records typify a volcanic eruption in mid-sixth century, further, this eruption is the one caused the cooling.However, common sense tells me there are many reasons that can make the same loud boom as the eruption, perhaps a terrible earthquake, or perhaps a long roll of thunder. Even if the voice was really caused by the volcanic eruption, however, the author assumes that this eruption is the one make the cool weather is incredible, it is entirely possible that this recorded eruption is only a small one so that the influence on is not enough to make a siginificant change in weather. Without ruling out these alternative explanations for the loud boom survived in records and the reason of cooling, the author cannot justify the conclusion that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.

Thirdly, the author assumes that there is no other possibility besides either a large meteorite collision or a volcanic eruption that result in a large dust cloud throughout the atmosphere blocking the sunlight caused the cooling in mid-sixth century. However, in this argument no evidence is offered to prove there is only two reasons related to the dust cloud, further, the blocking sunlight cloud is the reason of temperature decline, it is entirely possible that a dust cloud might made the earth as a greenhouse, perhaps the temperature decline is related with abnormal movement of the sun, or perhaps the dust cloud is not created by the collison or the eruption. The author cannot convince us unless excluding other possibilities.

In sum, the argument has not convinced us that a volcanic eruption bring the cooling, To bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence that the loud boom recorded was created by a volcanic eruption and this eruption is the one caused the suddenly change in temperature. To better assess the argument, I would need to know the author's assumption that there is no collision is credible. The author should provide more evidence to support there is only two ways caused the weather changed.






[ 本帖最后由 liquidshile 于 2006-12-3 14:08 编辑 ]

zhghuiUID: 2231447

能把topic 放上来吗?

liquidshileUID: 2254332

还没做完，不好意思，请多提意见

graduate06UID: 2223299

加油！！你的下一篇我没法回复。:)

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

In this argument, the author concludes that in the mid-sixth century the suddenly decline of the temperature was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To justify this conclusion the author cites a series of evidences, however, careful consideration of these facts reveals that they lends little credibility(复数吧) to the argument.

First, the author concludes too hastily that large meteorite collision did not happen in mid-sixth century because there is no historical records about a sudden bright flash which was probably created by the large meteorite collision of this time survived now. However, there is few extant historical records, as the author mentions, it is entirely possible that a meteorite collision happened in mid-sixth century but the records about it have lost. Without taking into account this possibilities, the author cannot persuade us that there is no large meteorite happened in mid-sixth century.

Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that a loud boom which was mentioned in extant Asian historical records typify a volcanic eruption in mid-sixth century, further, this eruption is the one caused the cooling.However, common sense tells me there are many reasons that can/could make the same loud boom as the eruption, perhaps a terrible earthquake, or perhaps去掉更好 a long roll of thunder. Even if the voice was really caused by the volcanic eruption, however, the author assumes that this eruption is the one make the cool weather is incredible, it is entirely possible that this recorded eruption is only a small one so that the influence on is not enough to make a siginificant change in weather. Without ruling out these alternative explanations for the loud boom survived in records and the reason of cooling, the author cannot justify the conclusion that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.

Thirdly, the author assumes that there is no other possibility复数 besides either a large meteorite collision or a volcanic eruption that result in a large dust cloud throughout the atmosphere and blocking the sunlight caused the cooling in mid-sixth century. However, in this argument no evidence is offered to prove there is only two reasons related to the dust cloud, further, the blocking sunlight cloud is the reason of temperature decline, it is entirely possible that a dust cloud might made the earth as a greenhouse, perhaps the temperature decline is related with abnormal movement of the sun, or perhaps the dust cloud is not created by the collison or the eruption. The author cannot convince us unless excluding other possibilities.

In sum, the argument has not convinced us that a volcanic eruption bring the cooling, To bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence that the loud boom recorded was created by a volcanic eruption and this eruption is the one caused the suddenly change in temperature. To better assess the argument, I would need to know the author's assumption that there is no collision is credible. The author should provide more evidence to support there is only two ways caused the weather changed.