argument47 加州阳光第五次作业

timboyUID: 193944

第一次写, 望大家多多意见
ARGUMENT 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.
简要提纲:
闪电是否有?(其他可能)
轰鸣声来自谁?(其他可能)
降温的解释?(其他可能)
The argument is well presented but is not well supported. By excluding the possibility of large meteorite collusion, the conclusion that the cooling of Earth is from volcanic eruption seems at first sight obvious. However, in some aspects, the argument has several evident defects.

To begin with, only the extant records cannot promise that the sudden flash does not exist. According to the author, the conclusion that a large meteorite collision should not exist is right only because there is no extant records concerning with them. However, the author fails to supply convincing evidence to exclude one possibility of the flash that the flash could not be seen from where people could write words on the paper. Without this critical evidence, it is much possible that the flash can only be seen in the place where people had no ability to write then or even perhaps could only be seen from the place nobody lived at that time. So more details in the period of the cooling should be thoroughly studied to make sure the possibility does not exist at all.

Even if the flash did not exist, it is still hasty to conclude that the boom is from the volcanic eruption. Since the record mentioned only the boom that would accompany the volcanic eruption without the real sight of eruption. The boom may not from the volcanic eruption. Perhaps the boom was from the explosion of a large quantity of gunpowder. Or perhaps the boom was from an unforgettable storm. Without more details such as the sight of volcanic eruption in the extant record at that time, I am afraid I have to doubt the cause indeed is the volcanic eruption.

In addition, even if the boom actually results from the volcanic eruption, the author’s conclusion that the cool of Earth is from the volcanic eruption is weakened by overlooking other explanations of cool such as the coming of ice-age or the rare bad weather happened at that time. It is true that the records of boom are consistence with the cool of earth and the volcano eruption is a common cause of cool of earth. However, it is arbitrary to make the assertion that the eruption is the undoubted exclusive cause of this certain cooling unless the author provide more details to exclude other causes such as the coming of the ice-age and the unusual weather that may affect the cooling. Maybe the eruption of volcano has little or even no effect on the result of cooling of earth.

In conclusion, the argument can be more persuasive if the author tell some details of the place where the boom happened and where the volcanic eruption took place. Moreover, the author need to exclude other cause of cooling except the meteorite colliding and the volcanic eruption.

[ 本帖最后由 timboy 于 2006-6-30 22:41 编辑 ]

timboyUID: 193944

望各位战友不吝赐教：）

benniUID: 2166321

谢拍了~！我来回拍，今天拍了两篇issue了，拍一下你的阿狗好了。

The argument is well presented but is not well supported. By excluding the possibility of large meteorite collusion, the conclusion that the cooling of Earth is from volcanic eruption seems at first sight obvious. However, in some aspects, the argument has several evident defects.

To begin with, only the extant records（应该是记载的不存在吧？） cannot promise that the sudden flash does not exist. According to the author, the conclusion that a large meteorite collision should not exist is right （这句话表意不清，虽然有了according to the author. 不如直接驳论）only because there is no extant records concerning with them（it）. However, the author fails to supply convincing evidence to exclude one possibility of the flash that the flash could not be seen from where people could write words on the paper（record）. Without this critical evidence, it is much possible that the flash can only be seen in the place where people had no ability to write then or even perhaps could only be seen from the place nobody lived at that time.（和前一句论证部分重复） So more details in the period of the cooling should be thoroughly studied to make sure the possibility does not exist at all.

Even if the flash did not exist, it is still hasty to conclude that the boom is from the volcanic eruption. Since the record mentioned only the boom that would accompany the volcanic eruption without the real sight of eruption.（这句话已经默认了boom和eruption的联系） The boom may not from the volcanic eruption. Perhaps the boom was（这段的时态和第一段的不同。不清楚到底应该是过去时还是现在时，还是统一就行，帮回答一下~）from the explosion of a large quantity of gunpowder. Or perhaps the boom was from an unforgettable storm. Without more details such as the sight of volcanic eruption in the extant record at that time, I am afraid I have to doubt the cause indeed is the volcanic eruption.（这句话连词省得有点猛，一般指代宾语是可以省略，但最好加上，比较规范）

In addition, even if the boom actually results from the volcanic eruption, the author’s conclusion that the cool of Earth is from the volcanic eruption is weakened by overlooking other explanations of cool such as the coming of ice-age or the rare bad weather happened at that time. It is true that the records of boom are consistence with the cool of earth and the volcano eruption is a common cause of cool of earth. However, it is arbitrary to make the assertion that the eruption is the undoubted exclusive cause of this certain cooling unless the author provide（provides） more details to exclude other causes such as the coming of the ice-age and the unusual weather that may affect the cooling. Maybe the eruption of volcano has little or even no effect on the result of cooling of earth.

In conclusion, the argument can be more persuasive if the author tell（tells） some details of the place where the boom happened and where the volcanic eruption took place. Moreover, the author need（needs） to exclude other cause（causes） of cooling except the meteorite colliding and the volcanic eruption.

行文流畅，开头尤其喜欢，简洁自然。

多注意一下第三人称单数的问题，加油~

[ 本帖最后由 benni 于 2006-7-2 01:23 编辑 ]

timboyUID: 193944

谢谢你的建议，望我们能共同进步：）

searoverUID: 2133188

第一次写, 望大家多多意见
ARGUMENT 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.
简要提纲:
闪电是否有?(其他可能)
轰鸣声来自谁?(其他可能)
降温的解释?(其他可能)
The argument is well presented but is not well supported. By excluding the possibility of large meteorite collusion, the conclusion that the cooling of Earth is from volcanic eruption seems at first sight obvious. However, in some aspects, the argument has several evident defects.<首段佳>

To begin with, only the extant records cannot promise that the sudden flash does not exist. According to the author, the conclusion that a large meteorite collision should not exist is right only because there is no extant records concerning with them. However, the author fails to supply convincing evidence to exclude one possibility of the flash that the flash could not be seen from where people could write words on the paper.<此句甚为冗长> Without this critical evidence, it is much possible that the flash can only be seen in the place where people had no ability to write then or even perhaps could only be seen from the place nobody lived at that time. So more details in the period of the cooling should be thoroughly studied to make sure the possibility does not exist at all.<驳斥的不错，漏洞也找的准确>

Even if the flash did not exist, it is still hasty to conclude that the boom is from the volcanic eruption. <让步好>Since the record mentioned only the boom that would accompany the volcanic eruption without the real sight of eruption. The boom may not from the volcanic eruption. Perhaps the boom was from the explosion of a large quantity of gunpowder. Or perhaps the boom was from an unforgettable storm. Without more details such as the sight of volcanic eruption in the extant record at that time, I am afraid I have to doubt the cause indeed is the volcanic eruption.

In addition, even if the boom actually results from the volcanic eruption, <总让步显得有点。。。况且就算需要继续让步，句式是不是可以变化一下>the author’s conclusion that the cool of Earth is from the volcanic eruption is weakened by overlooking other explanations of cool such as the coming of ice-age or the rare bad weather happened at that time. It is true that the records of boom are consistence with the cool of earth and the volcano eruption is a common cause of cool of earth. However, it is arbitrary to make the assertion that the eruption is the undoubted exclusive cause of this certain cooling unless the author provide more details to exclude other causes such as the coming of the ice-age and the unusual weather that may affect the cooling. Maybe the eruption of volcano has little or even no effect on the result of cooling of earth.

In conclusion, the argument can be more persuasive if the author tell some details of the place where the boom happened and where the volcanic eruption took place. Moreover, the author need to exclude other cause of cooling except the meteorite colliding and the volcanic eruption.<结尾也不错的>

<总体感觉：逻辑漏洞把握的比较准确，攻击也展开的不错。段落之间的承接一般，句式的变化更丰富一些效果更好。
此外，一些细节部分建议留出几分钟做检查，譬如时态譬如单复数等等>