Argument47【0710G Victors互助小组】第3次作业

唐诗三百首UID: 2273424

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.

证据不足
1. 有可能有两个之外的其他原因
2. 没有记载不一定没发生
3. 火山爆发记载的来源、可信度和时间（在气温下降的前后）

WORDS: 338         DATE: 2007-5-19 00:28:50

The arguer comes to the conclusion through a list of deduction that seems to be rational, which makes the statement seemingly correct that the cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. While for fur consideration, there are several flaws which make it suspected.

First of all, the arguer claims that the fall of the global temperature was caused by the dust that made by either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth was unconvincing. There is no doubt that these two conditions could give out enough dust to block the sunshine so that the sunlight was dimming and global temperature was lowered. But there could also be other reasons rather than the dust that caused the change of temperature, such as the activity cycle of the sun, etc. Or it was indeed the dust that made it, some other geographic movement like huge scale of earthquake instead of the two could form the dust.

Secondly, that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash was not enough to eliminate the possibility of a large meteorite collision. It was quite possible that the area where the meteorite collision happened was not civilized to record in materials, or there had ever been some kind of record about the collision which was destroyed. So the argument to negate the likelihood of meteorite collision is far from enough.

Also, the arguer fails to mention the source of the record and its reliability. Furthermore, the record time of the loud boom that would be consistent with the volcanic eruption is defaulted, which leave us uncertain about the relationship between the eruption and the change of the temperature. If the volcanic eruption happened after the temperature lowing condition, it is clear that they have no cause and effect relationship.

After pointing out so many obvious flaws in the argument, the cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century might have other more convincing reasons or the arguer should give more detail evidence.

[ 本帖最后由 唐诗三百首 于 2007-5-19 08:58 编辑 ]

puzilongUID: 2308557

The arguer comes to the conclusion through a list of deduction that seems to be rational, which makes the statement seemingly correct that the cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. While for fur[far] consideration, there are several flaws which make it suspected.

First of all, the arguer claims that the fall of the global temperature was caused by the dust that made by either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth was unconvincing. There is no doubt that these two conditions could give out enough dust to block the sunshine so that the sunlight was dimming and global temperature was lowered. But there could also be other reasons rather than the dust that caused the change of temperature, such as the activity cycle of the sun, etc. Or it was indeed the dust that made it, some other geographic movement like huge scale of earthquake instead of[that] the two could form the dust.

Secondly, that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash was not enough to eliminate the possibility of a large meteorite collision. It was quite possible that the area where the meteorite collision happened was not civilized to record in materials, or there had ever been some kind of record about the collision which was destroyed. So the argument to negate the likelihood of meteorite collision is far from enough.

Also, the arguer fails to mention the source of the record and its reliability. Furthermore, the record time of the loud boom that would be consistent with the volcanic eruption is defaulted, which leave us uncertain about the relationship between the eruption and the change of the temperature. If the volcanic eruption happened after the temperature lowing condition, it is clear that they have no cause and effect relationship.

After pointing out so many obvious flaws in the argument, the cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century might have other more convincing reasons or the arguer should give more detail evidence.


  指出了主要的 fallacies, 并且给出了分析论证. 结尾太过仓促.