argument47第十四次作业 kito组

智恩UID：2160717

Argument47（2005年2-9月总频24次）
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.
【翻译】
研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。
【提纲】
1 亚洲地区的a loud boom不一定是a volcanic eruption引起的；
2 作者也没有提供资料说明在loud boom否，是不是温度就下降了，if之前温度就下降了，就不能说明气温下降与loud boom有关；
3 认为当时没有a large meteorite collision也是没有保证的（只是说可能产生a sudden bright flash of light，而不是一定会产生；没有记载collision不代表没有，可能是有关记录没有保存下来，或者是collision发生的地点是没人的地方，如北极）
4 气温下降不一定就是这两个原因引起的（perhaps与太阳黑子macula，maculae，sunspot活动有关；也可能与当时动物和人类的活动有关）
【正文】
In this argument, the author reaches a conclusion that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support his or her conclusion, the author points out that some surviving Asian historical records of the time indicates a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Additionally, no historical records of that time mention a sudden bright flash of light which is the symbol of a meteorite collision. And also the author claims that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is responsible for the decline of global temperatures. Close scrutiny of this argument, however reveals that none of the evidence the author quoted could lend support to his or her conclusion.

To begin with, a threshold assumption upon which the conclusion relies is that a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. However the author fails to provide any information to substantiate the correlated relationship between these two phenomena. Lacking such evidence, it is arbitrary for the author to believe that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.

In addition, the author fails to offer information to illustrate that whether after the loud boom the temperature decreased. If the temperature had declined before the loud boom, the correlation between the loud boom and the decline of weather does not exist. Unless the author could provide the statistics of temperature before and after the loud boom, the author can not convince us this conclusion.

What is more, there is no guarantee about that a large meteorite collision did not exist in the mid-sixth century. The phenomenon of creating a sudden bright flash of light is just a possible indication of a large meteorite collision. In other words, there is no inevitable relationship between a sudden bright flash of light and a large meteorite collision. Moreover, none historical records of such a flash does not represent the inexistence of the meteorite collision. Perhaps the relevant records do not save. Or perhaps no people resided in the place where the collision happened. Also there is another entire possibility that none of persons dwelt in the location of the occurring of collision, such as Arctic pole areas. Without considering and ruling out the possibilities, the author's conclusion lacks credibility.

Last but not the least, there are other reasons for the temperature decline except the meteorite collision and the volcanic eruption. As it is known to all, the maculae activities have some correlative relationship with the decline of weather. Furthermore perhaps the decreasing temperature has something to do with the activities of animals and residents at that time. Such possible reasons would serve to undermine the author's claim that a volcanic eruption was responsible for the temperature decline.

In summary, this argument is logically flawed in a number of respects as it stands and the author's conclusion is presumptuous because he or she excludes the possible existence of the meteorite collision and some other possibilities which might contribute to lower the global temperature. To strengthen it, the author must provide us that detailed information about whether there was a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century. And to make it better evaluate it, the author should investigate that whether it exists other reasons led to the dramatic temperature decline.

谢谢拍  

dganggangUID：2125101

【提纲】
1 亚洲地区的a loud boom不一定是a volcanic eruption引起的；
2 作者也没有提供资料说明在loud boom否，是不是温度就下降了，if之前温度就下降了，就不能说明气温下降与loud boom有关；
3 认为当时没有a large meteorite collision也是没有保证的（只是说可能产生a sudden bright flash of light，而不是一定会产生；没有记载collision不代表没有，可能是有关记录没有保存下来，或者是collision发生的地点是没人的地方，如北极）
4 气温下降不一定就是这两个原因引起的（perhaps与太阳黑子macula，maculae，sunspot活动有关；也可能与当时动物和人类的活动有关）理由都很正确 我很赞同
【正文】
In this argument, the author reaches a conclusion that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support his or her conclusion, the author points out that some surviving Asian historical records of the time indicates a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Additionally, no historical records of that time mention a sudden bright flash of light which is the symbol of a meteorite collision. And also the author claims that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth is responsible for the decline of global temperatures.这个应该放在前面引述吧 这里有歧义 Close scrutiny of this argument, however reveals that none of the evidence the author quoted could lend support to his or her哈哈 conclusion.最后这句话整个意思好像有问题

To begin with, a threshold assumption upon which the conclusion relies on is that a loud boom would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. However the author fails to provide any information to substantiate the correlated relationship between these two phenomena. Lacking such evidence, it is arbitrary for the author to believe that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.(清爽 你的语感不错的）

In addition, the author fails to offer 冠词 information to illustrate that whether after the loud boom the temperature decreased. If the temperature had declined before the loud boom, the correlation between the loud boom and the decline of weather does not exist. Unless the author could provide the statistics of temperature before and after the loud boom, the author can not convince us this conclusion.（有问题阿，就算时间吻合也不能证明有逻辑关系）

What is more, there is no guarantee about that a large meteorite collision did not exist in the mid-sixth century. The phenomenon of creating a sudden bright flash of light is just a possible indication of a large meteorite collision. In other words, there is no inevitable relationship between a sudden bright flash of light and a large meteorite collision. Moreover, none historical records of such a flash does not represent the inexistence of the meteorite collision. Perhaps the relevant records do not save. Or perhaps no people resided in the place where the collision happened. Also there is another entire possibility that none of persons dwelt in the location of the occurring of collision, such as Arctic pole areas. Without considering and ruling out the possibilities, the author's conclusion lacks credibility. 很好

Last but not the least, there are （may be为好）other reasons for the temperature decline except the meteorite collision and the volcanic eruption. As it is known to all, the maculae activities have some correlative relationship with the decline of weather我缺乏这方面知识，不过还是不要习作前查资料的好，模拟下. Furthermore perhaps the decreasing temperature has something to do with the activities of animals and residents at that time. Such possible reasons would serve to undermine the author's claim that a volcanic eruption was responsible for the temperature decline.

In summary, this argument is logically flawed in a number of respects as it stands and the author's conclusion is presumptuous because he or she excludes the possible existence of the meteorite collision and some other possibilities which might contribute to lower the global temperature. To strengthen it, the author must provide us that detailed information about whether there was a volcanic eruption in the mid-sixth century. And to make it better evaluate it, the author should investigate that whether it exists other reasons led to the dramatic temperature decline.

你的语言和遣词造句真得很流畅到位 值得学习！
开头和结尾有点长 影响时间控制是肯定的