argu47 FLY AW 第十三次作业

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

In this argument, the author asserts the significant cooling of Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this assertion, he cites several extant records which survived from that time. And then based on these records, he hastily precludes one possible cause among the two alternatives which may result in the sudden cooling in earth. Obviously, the argument commits a series of evident logical fallacies, and therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
A threshold assumption upon which the conclusion relies is that there are only two possibilities that may lead to the sudden cooling on earth in the mid-sixth century. The author neglects other alternatives that may also cause the phenomenon, such as components had changed in the atmosphere, the orbit of the sun altered at that time. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the author cannot further his analysis among a questionable and incomprehensive range.
While accepting the assumption that other explanations are not available, only through some incomprehensive and statistically unreliable records lacking details, we cannot simply preclude the possibility that the meteorite colliding with Earth worked solely or co-function with the volcanic eruption in this accident. On one hand, no extant historical records of the time concerning a flash does not equal with the fact that no such a flash ever happened. Perhaps the flash of light went so fast that no one even have noticed it, or the collision broke out in a remote area where no residents lived . Or perhaps the individuals who have observed this phenomenon did not document it. Even assuming that someone did write it down, it is entirely possible that the records have been destroyed because of erosion, thus have been discarded or lost. On the other hand, the above-mentioned surviving records may act as a little portion of the total amount of records during that time. Thus, the authenticity and reliability of these partial records is open to doubt.
Finally, the author cites a piece of information regarding a loud boom from the records, claiming that the boom is consistent with a volcanic eruption. Obviously, the report is not statistically reliable, a loud boom may be caused by other natural disasters, such as landslide, the collision by meteorite. And what about the time of the boom? Whether the temperature declined significantly after that is dubious. It is entirely possible that the boom mentioned above has nothing to do with the abrupt cooling of Earth.
On balance, as it stands, the conclusion deduced by the author is unreliable. To strengthen it, he must provide comprehensive records regarding relative accidents happening before and after the Earth cooling. Furthermore, the author should take other alternative possibilities which may also account for the phenomenon into consideration. Additionally, the loud boom mentioned in the record should be investigated, to assure whether it is really created by a volcanic eruption.

exp03UID: 2158827

In this argument, the author asserts the significant cooling of Earth in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this assertion, he cites several extant records which survived from that time. And then  based on these records then和based on these records感觉意义上有重复, he？不能确定是男是女 hastily precludes one possible cause among between the the在这里要不要呢？ two alternatives which may result in the sudden cooling in on the? earth. Obviously, the argument commits a series of evident logical fallacies, and therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

A threshold assumption upon which the conclusion relies is that there are only two possibilities that may lead to the sudden cooling on earth in the mid-sixth century. The author neglects other alternatives that may also cause the phenomenon, such as components had changed in the atmosphere, and the orbit of the sun altered at that time. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the author cannot further his analysis among a questionable and incomprehensive range.

While accepting the assumption that other explanations are not available, only through some incomprehensive and statistically unreliable records lacking details, we cannot simply preclude the possibility that the meteorite colliding with Earth worked solely or co-function with the volcanic eruption in this accident. On one hand, no extant historical records of the time concerning a flash does not equal with the fact that no such a flash ever happened. Perhaps the flash of light went so fast that no one even have noticed it, or the collision broke out in a remote area where no residents lived . Or perhaps the individuals who have observed this phenomenon did not document it. Even assuming that someone did write it down, it is entirely possible that the records have been destroyed because of erosion, thus have been discarded or lost.这些举例很不错，我的举例太少 On the other hand, the above-mentioned surviving records may act as a little portion of the total amount of records during that time. Thus, the authenticity and reliability of these partial records is open to doubt.

Finally, the author cites a piece of information regarding a loud boom from the records, claiming that the boom is consistent with a volcanic eruption. Obviously, the report is not statistically reliable, a loud boom may be caused by other natural disasters, such as landslide, the collision by meteorite. And what about the time of the boom? Whether the temperature declined significantly after that is dubious. It is entirely possible that the boom mentioned above has nothing to do with the abrupt cooling of Earth.
这段论证很到位，觉得这两段内容是不是应该连在一起写？

On balance, as it stands, the conclusion deduced by the author is unreliable. To strengthen it, he must provide comprehensive records regarding relative accidents happening before and after the Earth cooling. Furthermore, the author should take other alternative possibilities which may also account for the phenomenon into consideration. Additionally, the loud boom mentioned in the record should be investigated, to assure whether it is really created by a volcanic eruption.

  写这篇文章的时候我就在考虑一个问题，也许是老问题，对于这个significant cooling的真实性要不要反驳？在我看来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.这一句开始就是arguer的论证了，已经不是在陈述事实了，所以是可以反驳的，但是看了owl的文章发现确实这个方面是一个值得商榷的问题J希望得到解答。

夜一UID: 2130338

我觉得significant cooling的真实性的不用讨论的呢，因为原题的结论是cooling是由eruption造成的，我们要反驳的是结论的话，就可以把cooling当作一个客观事实。
Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler.
总之我的理解，这句话是一个前提条件，可以当作客观事实。
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.
这就是要argue的内容了，因为从这里开始，原题明显将cooling等同为了dimming，这是不符合道理的，每人能肯定dimming是cooling的主要原因，dimming只在亚洲和欧洲被记录，global的情况并不可知，而且cooling本身就和很多因素有关系，比如地球内部的能量活动，温室气体的变化，还有地表反照率的变化等等。
后来原题又将dimming等同为dust cloud，最后又将dust cloud等同为eruption，都是没有根据的，我觉得这是三个主要的问题所在。

[ 本帖最后由 夜一 于 2006-6-15 22:55 编辑 ]

exp03UID: 2158827

嗯 看过夜一的文章后就基本知道我的问题所在了 发现单词含义不清也影响了对题目的理解和写作