argument47——义无反顾小组第十三次作业

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

(1)作者只提出两个非此即彼的原因，没有考虑其他原因；
（2）如果只有这两个因素造成气候骤冷，不能因为没有闪光记录就否定没有行星碰撞。可能：碰撞在大气层之外，肉眼看不见；或者即使有人看见，却没有记录下来。
（3）即使有巨响记录，也不一定是火山爆发。不能排除其他原因。
In the statement the author contributes a volcanic eruption to the sudden cooling of earth in mid-sixth century. Well presented as it is, the argument is not thoroughly reasoned. Several logical fallacies will be revealed after we take careful reflection.

To begin, the arguer presents a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between two courses. There maybe other factors that resulted to this significantly cooler .Other research recently reveals that the abnormal movements of sunspots or other mystery energy that remain unknown have played great role in the pattern of earth weather for a long time. Without ruling out the alternative explanations, the author can't confidently draw the conclusion.

Secondly, though the causes are confined into two events, we can't sweep out the one that meteorite collision leaded to sudden cold temperature. Supposing the collision is happened outside the earth's atmosphere, it is impossible for human being to observe by eyes. Furthermore, if someone had experienced such event with a flash, it does not necessarily mean the witness would leave records for decedents. Deep down, even if they had written down the process, it is possible that the records had been lost in the long time. After all, mid-six century is too far away from present time. Consequently, unless the author can supply compelling evidence to substantiate his assumption, we can agree with his research result.

Thirdly, the mere record of a huge boom does not mean it is companied by  a volcano eruption. Common sense tell us, a flood or a huge earthquake also produce such big boom. Failing to consider these phenomena’s, the arguer can't convince us to accept his assertion.

In sum, if scientists want to find out the real cause of the sudden cooler weather in mid-sixth, they need do further research and detailed investigation.


限时只写了265个字，后来又修改的:rolleyes:

[ 本帖最后由 kittywen_16 于 2006-5-27 13:35 编辑 ]

yixiugeUID: 2212507

well done! Move on!

glxingUID: 2156425

最近大家确实很忙啊，都见不着了，现在小结和互改都没有按时完成，尤其是互改，我们应该反思了啊。
芹菜，下一阶段还会这么紧张吗——一天一篇？

glxingUID: 2156425

提纲：
1，        不一定太阳变暗和寒冷又直接关系，因此后面的两个假设都不一定成立
2，        即使这两个假设成立，作者不能仅仅根据记录上的声音来做结论
3，        彗星碰撞没有记录不代表不发生   

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.

The author believes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. The author's evidence is that there was no historical records about a bright flash while the surviving records mentioned a loud boom like a volcanic eruption, however, close scrutiny of this statement reveals that there are several logical mistakes in it.

First of all, the author's assumption that extremely cold temperature has direct relation with the dimming of the sun has no evidence to support. Although the two phenomena were both recorded in some Asian and European accounts, the author does not give enough demonstration to prove they are related. Then the following reasoning that a volcanic eruption or a meteorite collision was the possible cause is unpersuasive. It is possible that the cold temperatures were caused by other reasons, such as the moon move around the Earth disorderly.

Even if a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with earth are two only possible reasons, the author cannot judge that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. The first reason is that the reliability of such kind of record can not be convictive. Who made these records? Were they professional in this field? Moreover, the loud boom mentioned in some surviving Asian historical records may be not the sound of a volcanic eruption. It is possible that there was one earthquake   happening in nearby area. So we can not make a decision that there would be a volcanic eruption.
  
The second reason is that we can not say that there was no meteorite collision just because no extant historical records of the time mention a flash. Maybe the flash was difficult to be found and then people would not record it in accounts. Furthermore, the fact that we have not found relevant records now does not mean that there are no such records. It is quite possible that some records mentioning the flash can be found in the future.

In sum, the author's statement can not be persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should prove that the cold weather is related to the dimming of the sun, and a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth are the two only possible reasons. Moreover, the author should provide enough evidence to prove that there was not a large meteorite colliding with Earth. It is better that the author can ensure that the loud boom mentioned in records can actually represent the volcanic eruption.

yuviUID: 2169411

提綱：
1．        質疑是否因爲dust而導致了cold
a)        無資料顯示兩者的必然聯係，完全有可以能是太陽本身的能量變化而使地球變冷
b)        無資料顯示隕石撞地球或火山爆發可能使氣溫變低
（有可能是洋流變化或地球和太陽閒距離的變化周期所影響）
2．        質疑火山爆發是唯一原因
a)        缺少資料顯示the loud boom就是火山爆發
b)        未紀錄閃光不代表隕石撞地球沒有發生
3．        質疑歷史資料和客觀事實的必然聯係


In this argument, the author concluded that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler was probably caused by a huge volcanic eruption. To support this contention, the author points out some surviving Asian historical records might indicate the volcanic eruption and there is no extant historical records of the time mention a meteorite collision that may also cause a result of the cooling on earth at that time. However, the author's argument suffers from a series of logical problems, and is therefore wholly unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author's contention depends on the assumption that no facts other than a large meteorite colliding with Earth or a huge volcanic eruption could have created a large dust and therefore caused the Earth’s temperatures became extremely cold. On one hand, there is no such evidence shows that a dust throughout Earth's atmosphere and the cooling temperatures at that time were got some significant relationships. And also, the author absents to consider that the dimming of the sun might not caused by the dust throughout of the atmosphere on Earth but rather a huge energy changing by sun itself. On the other hand, the author fails to indicate that meteorite collision and volcanic eruption were the only two reasons caused such large dust around the Earth and then lower the temperatures. It possibly might be a significant changing caused by the ocean current or the distance changing between Earth and sun to lower the temperatures as well at that time. Without ruling these or other possible causes, the author cannot justifiably conclude that a dust throughout the atmosphere caused by a large meteorite collision or a huge volcanic eruption is the only reason to make Earth suddenly became significantly colder.

Even assuming that it was a large dust throughout the atmosphere caused the temperatures became colder at mid-sixth century, the author still fails to contend that a volcanic eruption was the reason in the period to caused such dust. First, the surviving Asian historical records that show a loud boom cannot to be indicate with a certain consistent with a volcanic eruption. The loud boom at that time might cause by a strong movement of the Earth's crust or some other possible causes. And, there is no extant historical record of the time mention a flash about the meteorite collision does not mean it was not happened anyway. It was possible that such meteorite collision happened in a non-habitation area, and therefore no one has seen such flash. Or it might simply because that human have not find such records yet, but they do exist. In short, without to consider these possibilities, the author's conclusion that volcanic eruption was the only reason caused the large dust throughout atmosphere and therefore lower the temperatures on Earth significantly, cannot be stand as a well-ground argument.

Last but not the least, even to assume that a huge volcanic eruption was the reason made a large dust throughout atmosphere and then caused the globe temperatures lower significantly, the author of this argument still cannot indicate such claims with existing records. Common sense informs us that any scientific study only based on the long-time records cannot be seen as persuasively, at least it lacks sufficient to make people believe. In the case here, the author only provide the surviving historical records from some parts of Asia, however, the author does not mention which part of Asia it is. And it might be possible that such records mention a loud boom which was happened only in East Asia, and how could such the volcanic eruption happened in a part of the Earth (if it was) made a huge dust all around world and therefore to block sunlight and then lower the global temperatures extremely at that time? Without the explanations about the progress of the temperature cooling in a scientific way, the author cannot simply conclude that such cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption only with the existing records.  

In sum, the author provides no evidence that a large dust throughout Earth's atmosphere was the reason made the cooling temperatures in the mid-sixth century. Moreover, a large meteorite collision or a huge volcanic eruption might cause such dust and then lower the temperatures on earth cannot be taken as seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, we need know more evidences about the changing patterns in that period and as well as some scientific analysis rather than the personal assumptions in the case.


(748 words)


我觉得这篇文章没有办法限时,因为没有办法用三言两语说得清楚..:(

[ 本帖最后由 yuvi 于 2006-5-28 13:08 编辑 ]

yuviUID: 2169411

第十三次作业互改顺序:

yuvi-->小蜗牛-->kitty--->calsuuny--->yuvi

[ 本帖最后由 yuvi 于 2006-5-29 10:03 编辑 ]

yuviUID: 2169411

提纲：
1，        不一定太阳变暗和寒冷又直接关系，因此后面的两个假设都不一定成立
2，        即使这两个假设成立，作者不能仅仅根据记录上的声音来做结论
3，        彗星碰撞没有记录不代表不发生 (不是彗星啊，注意审题，就是一般的陨石撞地球了)

The author believes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. The author's evidence is that there was no historical records about a bright flash while the surviving records mentioned a loud boom like a volcanic eruption（这句话说得有些突兀了吧，前面有个铺垫让也许会比较好）, however, close scrutiny of this statement reveals that there are several logical mistakes in it.

First of all, the author's assumption that extremely cold temperature has direct relation with the dimming of the sun has no evidence to support. Although the two phenomena were both recorded in some Asian and European accounts, the author does not give enough demonstration to prove they are related. Then the following reasoning that a volcanic eruption or a meteorite collision was the possible cause is unpersuasive. It is possible that the cold temperatures were caused by other reasons, such as the moon move around the Earth disorderly.（这里差个结尾句，中间论证有点单薄了哈，为什么说他们没有联系呢？小蜗牛你也没有给出一个能够让你这么说的证据）
Even if a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with earth are two only possible reasons, the author cannot judge that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. The first reason is that the reliability of such kind of record can not be convictive. Who made these records? Were they professional in this field? （这两个问题……我觉得不必要出现。那么早之前的人能够用文字/或者其他的什么载体记录下来就不错了，怎么可以要求他们用今天的思维来professional呢？）Moreover, the loud boom mentioned in some surviving Asian historical records may be not the sound of a volcanic eruption. It is possible that there was one earthquake （有可能，我的思路是地壳运动，居然没有想到earthquake，晕~~）happening in nearby area. So we can not make a decision that there would be a volcanic eruption.（结尾句写得不好，好象临时硬加上来的）
  
The second （third了把？）reason is that we can not say that there was no meteorite collision just because no extant historical records of the time mention a flash. Maybe the flash was difficult to be found and then people would not record it in accounts. Furthermore, the fact that we have not found relevant records now does not mean that there are no such records.（完全同意） It is quite possible that some records mentioning the flash can be found in the future.（这点和我的思路差不多）

In sum, the author's statement can not be persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should prove that the cold weather is related to the dimming of the sun, and a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth are the two only possible reasons. Moreover, the author should provide enough evidence to prove that there was not a large meteorite colliding with Earth（这里表达很奇怪~~）. It is better that the author can ensure that the loud boom mentioned in records can actually represent the volcanic eruption. （author自己ensure了和事实还是没有什么关系啊？最后这句MS欠缺逻辑。。）

总结：

小蜗牛的一些思路和我的非常像。攻击的步骤也差不多，先是质疑太阳变暗和气温两者的联系，再是质疑火山爆发是否为唯一的原因。不同的是我把你的第2，3点合并来写了，最后附加了一个自己的理解段。
但是我觉得你的写法结构也不错。毕竟我自己回过头再看自己写的东西，好象第三段太罗嗦了。
呵呵~~小蜗牛用earthquake来解释a loud boom很不错，我前面两段也想了不少乱七八糟的可能性来反驳题目里的逻辑错误，大家可以参考性的看看~~
总之这篇作业真是写得脑袋都想破了~~：（

calsunnyUID: 2163431

我的作业，迟到的作业，我一定争取跟上家的进度！

47.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.

可能有其他原因导致地球变冷，或者其他东西引起大片尘埃云层；
只是可能产生强烈的闪光，不一定标明一定会有闪光；即使一定有闪光，那么历史记录中没有提到，不一定就没有，可是资料丢失，也有可能是资料记录的遗漏；
隆隆声不一定是火山喷发导致的。
即使是火山喷发引起，也不一定导致气温下降


In this argument, the arguer asserts that a volcanic eruption caused the sudden cool weather in the mid-sixth century. It seems to be invincible because the arguer cites some historical records to consolidate the conclusion. However, the reasoning may be irrational in several aspects.

What comes first is the problematic relation between the dimming of the sun and the cold weather. There are many reasons which may cause the cold weather, such as the increasing and decreasing of macula, the speed changing of the earth rotation, and the moving of the two earth poles and so on. Even if the large dust cloud blocked the sunlight and lowered global temperatures significantly. But the arguer just makes a choice between the large meteorite colliding and huge volcanic. Actually, it is highly possible that due to the deforest of mankind and lacking the rain for a long time which makes the land sandlize and finally the sand storm results in the large dust cloud and leads to the cold temperature. It is also possible that a large and destructive fire swept the inflammable grassland which produce the heavy fume covered the sun then caused the cold weather. If the arguer fails to convince us with only two factors which caused the dimming of the sun, the conclusion is ungrounded.

Furthermore, even if one of these two factors caused the cold weather, the arguer fails to exclude the other one, that’s the collision of the meteoric. The history record only said the large meteoric collision would probably create a sudden bright flash, but it does not follow to say it must create the flash. It is different between the imperativity and possibility. Given that it would do create a flash, the arguer only points out that there are no extant record, it does not mean the flash did not happened. It is possible that this flash happens in the area, such as South Pole where no people could see it. Maybe the people did not write down about the flash because they did not know what it was; or the record which wrote this kind of flash was destroyed or still was not found.

Still more, the arguer makes a false relation between the loud boom, the volcanic, and the lower weather. There is no evidence to verify that the loud sound was caused by the corruption. Maybe it just a thunder, earthquake, or comes from the bomber. Even if we concede the loud boom was related to a volcanic eruption, it is still absent of the scientific and detailed information to prove that volcanic eruption had enough influence or power to cause the lower global temperatures significantly. How about the size and scope of the eruption, how long it lasted and whether there was other records concerning to that eruption except the loud boom. And it is more important why the eruption would cause the cold weather. Maybe the eruption would not lower the temperature. On the contrary, as the eruption of the volcanic, giant heat would create and the temperature will be heightened in that place in a specific period. If so, the conclusion that the volcanic eruption caused the cold weather is weakened greatly.

To sum up, based on what has discussed and analyzed above, it is clear that the argument is invalid and misleading. To make it more believable, the arguer should rule out other possibilities to cause the cooling, as well as proving that the boom was the sound of volcanic eruption which was enough powerful to change the global temperature ferocity.

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

今天改作业

[ 本帖最后由 kittywen_16 于 2006-5-30 05:04 编辑 ]

calsunnyUID: 2163431

提綱：
1．        質疑是否因爲dust而導致了cold
a)        無資料顯示兩者的必然聯係，完全有可以能是太陽本身的能量變化而使地球變冷
b)        無資料顯示隕石撞地球或火山爆發可能使氣溫變低----看了文章才知道，芹菜这两个方面其实在写一个方面，应该不一定是dimming引起，比如洋流，太阳本身的原因；即使是dimming引起，也不一定是陨石和火山，可能是其他，比如，，，，（有可能是洋流變化或地球和太陽閒距離的變化周期所影響）
2．        質疑火山爆發是唯一原因
a)        缺少資料顯示the loud boom就是火山爆發
b)        未紀錄閃光不代表隕石撞地球沒有發生----这一点应该写在前面，不能排除是陨石撞击，即使能排除，也不能显示上一点；
3．        質疑歷史資料和客觀事實的必然聯係

In this argument, the author concluded that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler was probably caused by a huge volcanic eruption. To support this contention, the author points out some surviving Asian historical records might indicate the volcanic eruption and there is no extant historical records of the time mention a meteorite collision that may also cause a result of the cooling on earth at that time. However, the author's argument suffers from a series of logical problems, and is therefore wholly unpersuasive.--嗯，一个中规中矩的开头，我觉得这样的开头也挺好的。

To begin with, the author's contention depends on the assumption that no facts other than a large meteorite colliding with Earth or a huge volcanic eruption could have created a large dust and therefore caused the Earth’s temperatures became(to be) extremely cold.---句子太长而且有语病！ On one hand, there is no such evidence shows that a dust throughout Earth's atmosphere and the cooling temperatures at that time were got some significant relationships. And also, the author absents to consider that the dimming of the sun might not caused by the dust throughout of the atmosphere on Earth but rather a huge energy changing by sun itself----感觉这一部分是关键，其他的简要说明就行，这样你的字数就不会那么多了. On the other hand, the author fails to indicate that meteorite collision and volcanic eruption were the only two reasons caused such large dust around the Earth and then lower the temperatures. It possibly might be a significant changing caused by the ocean current or the distance changing between Earth and sun to lower the temperatures as well at that time. Without ruling these or other possible causes, the author cannot justifiably conclude that a dust throughout the atmosphere caused by a large meteorite collision or a huge volcanic eruption is the only reason to make Earth suddenly became significantly colder.---这句话精简，否则罗嗦！

Even assuming that it was a large dust throughout the atmosphere caused the temperatures became colder at mid-sixth century, the author still fails to contend that a volcanic eruption was the reason in the period to caused such dust. First, the surviving Asian historical records that show a loud boom cannot to be indicate with a certain consistent with a volcanic eruption. The loud boom at that time might cause by a strong movement of the Earth's crust or some other possible causes. And, there is no extant historical record of the time mention a flash about the meteorite collision does not mean it was not happened anyway. It was possible that such meteorite collision happened in a non-habitation area, and therefore no one has seen such flash. Or it might simply because that human have not find such records yet, but they do exist. In short, without to consider these possibilities, the author's conclusion that volcanic eruption was the only reason caused the large dust throughout atmosphere and therefore lower the temperatures on Earth significantly, cannot be stand as a well-ground argument.----总感觉你的总结句太长了呀！

Last but not the least, even to assume that a huge volcanic eruption was the reason made a large dust throughout atmosphere and then caused the globe temperatures lower significantly, the author of this argument still cannot indicate such claims with existing records. Common sense informs us that any scientific study only based on the long-time records cannot be seen as persuasively, at least it lacks sufficient to make people believe. In the case here, the author only provide the surviving historical records from some parts of Asia, however, the author does not mention which part of Asia it is. And it might be possible that such records mention a loud boom which was happened only in East Asia, and how could such the volcanic eruption happened in a part of the Earth (if it was) made a huge dust all around world and therefore to block sunlight and then lower the global temperatures extremely at that time? Without the explanations about the progress of the temperature cooling in a scientific way, the author cannot simply conclude that such cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption only with the existing records.  

In sum, the author provides no evidence that a large dust throughout Earth's atmosphere was the reason made the cooling temperatures in the mid-sixth century. Moreover, a large meteorite collision or a huge volcanic eruption might cause such dust and then lower the temperatures on earth cannot be taken as seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, we need know more evidences about the changing patterns in that period and as well as some scientific analysis rather than the personal assumptions in the case.


(748 words)

首先字数超多，首先大赞一下，我怎么也写不到这么多字，还出於凑字数的阶段，错误也全找到了。但是感觉文章基本都是长句子-----这样太容易出现语法错误了，有些地方显得有点罗嗦，所以还得考虑给句子减肥，呵呵！加油啊！

calsunnyUID: 2163431

红色标出来没有说明的，基本可能是语法错误，sorry,没有帮你一一改出来！

yuviUID: 2169411

先谢谢sunny的修改~~:)
马上拷下来后面好好看看,我自己也觉得写得太罗嗦了.