ARGUMENT47 向我开拍

paburawUID: 2204657

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.
WORDS: 420          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-5
1 关于历史记录，第一只有两个洲，而且这两个地区这么大，如果只是在寒冷地区找到到呢？
2 对于是否有发生过卫星撞击证据不足
3 对与巨响和火山爆发的证据也是不足的
4 怎么没有考虑其他可能的因素
In this argument, the author concludes that there was a time when Earth suddenly became significantly cooler in the mid-sixth century and it was caused by a volcanic eruption. To bolster his conclusion, the author employs a set of evidence, from few historical records survive from that time. However, this argument is specious in several respects.

To begin with, as for few historical records surviving from the mid-sixth century, it amount to insufficient evidence to support the author's conclusion. As it only records the climate in two continents, Asia and Europe, how about other continents? The argument contains no information about it; it is entirely possible that the climate in other continents is not so cool as Asia or Europe. Furthermore, consider Asia and Europe are both large in area, if these records are all found in cold districts, the record amounts to scant evidence to draw any sound conclusion that there has been the cooing that time.

In the second place, the author fails to convince us that the meteorite collision has not happened that time. Since the author informs above, that there are only few historical records surviving from that time, perhaps meteorite collision did happen, and records have not been found or even had not any record because it took place in the uninhabited areas, such as in the polar region. Without ruling out this or other possibilities, the arguer cannot draw any sound conclusion that meteorite collision has not taken place.

In the third place, even assuming that there was indeed not a meteorite collision, the arguer further integrates a boom recorded in that time with a volcanic eruption. Unfortunately, this is not necessary the case. The argument contains no information about the exact time of the boom, if this time is earlier than that of the climate becoming cooler. Also, the boom can be caused by many other reasons such as earthquake, thunder and so much. In short, any case above, if true, would further undermine the author's conclusion that the volcanic eruption is the reason for the cooling in the mid-sixth century.

Final and not least, the arguer commits a fallacy of imposing “either-or” reasoning in assuming that if the meteorite collision is not the reason for the cool, it must be the volcanic eruption. The arguer fails to rule out other possible alternative reasons for the cooling. Also this argument contains no evidence that there are no other reasons which can also be responsible for the cooling. Until the arguer consider and rule out other possible reasons, his conclusion would be more reliable.

In sum, this argument is not well-reasoned as it maintains. If the author wants to make his conclusion reliable, the following reasons must to collect more evidence concerning about this cooling.