argument47 [Flamy July小组] heap第一次限时，已修改了一番

heapUID: 2122790

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

In this argument the author claims that it is the volcanic eruption that leads to the sudden cooling of the earth. To support this view the arguer rules out the other possibility, a meteorite collision, in that it is not likely to be the origin since there is no historical records for a sudden bright flash of light. However, I find this argument specious in several respects.

In the first place, there is no reasonable evidence to support that there hasn't been a large meteorite collision that may cause the significant cooling. The arguer simply points out that there are no extant historical records, yet this could not be strong evidence. In fact, such a large period of time has passed that it is quite acceptable to lose the records. Besides, even assuming that these records are indeed never existed, it is still doubted that whether or not there was a global cooling, or just a regional one. Since Asia and Europe are on the same continental plate, grand climate phenomena probably were shared by these two continents at that time. But we cannot be sure that same climate change happened in other area on Earth.

Furthermore, even assuming that there was once a suddenly significant global cooling, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence that the cooling can be caused by a volcanic eruption. Perhaps the eruption happens rightly in the era of this significantly cooler, and these observed phenomena, actually, says little more than that these two events are synchronic to each other and that is all.

Finally, to draw the conclusion that the global cooling is caused by the eruption, the author must first establish the assumption that the cooling on Earth was caused by either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision. But, since the editorial provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption, it is equally possible that the two things happened at the same time. In addition, the argument might ignore factors such as earthquakes，tsunami and other unpredictable things that may be more important than the volcanic eruption in determining this significantly cooler.

In sum, the author’s evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the author’s argument that the cooling is determined by a huge volcanic eruption. Unless the arguer can provide concrete evidence concerning other possibilities and a firm relationship between volcanic eruption and the cooling, the conclusion cannot be properly drawn.

[ 本帖最后由 heap 于 2006-7-7 01:58 编辑 ]

fishydsUID: 2197003

In this argument the author claims that it is the volcanic eruption that leads to the sudden cooling of the earth. To support this view the arguer rules out the other possibility, a meteorite collision, in that it is not likely to be the origin since there is no historical records for a sudden bright flash of light. However, I find this argument specious in several respects.

In the first place, there is no reasonable evidence to support that there hasn't been a large meteorite collision that may cause the significant cooling. The arguer simply points out that there are no extant historical records, yet this could not be strong evidence. In fact, such a large period of time has passed that it is quite acceptable to lose the records. Besides, even assuming that these records are indeed never existed (are…existed? 是否应用have existed 或者existed), it is still doubted that whether or not there was a global cooling, or just a regional one. Since Asia and Europe are on the same continental plate, grand climate phenomena probably were shared by these two continents at that time. But we cannot be sure that (the) same climate change happened in other area(areas) on Earth.
(釜底抽薪，但这种攻击可能没有太大作用，因为问题的核心是气候变冷到底是不是同火山爆发有关，而不是说这种现象是全球的还是区域性的，抑或根本不存在)
Furthermore, even assuming that there was once a suddenly significant global cooling, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence that the cooling can be caused by a volcanic eruption. Perhaps the eruption happens rightly(是恰好的意思么？rightly好像没有这个意思) in the era of this significantly cooler(cooler做名词用是冰箱的意思，这里感觉意思好像不对， cooler看成形容词没有修饰词，不完整，是否可改成in this significantly cooler era，或者用cooling代替cooler), and these observed phenomena, actually, says little more than that these two events are synchronic to each other and that is all.

Finally, to draw the conclusion that the global cooling is caused by the eruption, the author must first establish the assumption that the cooling on (the) Earth  (on earth 和on the Earth意思完全不同) was caused by either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision. But, since the editorial provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption, it is equally possible that the two things happened at the same time(不好意思，不太明确这部分的推理，气候变冷要么是由火山爆发要么由小行星撞击引起－>这两件事可能同时发生－>作者的推理不完善，有点绕不明白，呵呵，请heap兄解答). In addition, the argument might ignore factors such as earthquakes，tsunami and other unpredictable things that may be more important than the volcanic eruption in determining this significantly cooler. (个人感觉地震和海啸同火山爆发相比对气候变冷的影响效果小得多，因为这两个影响效果是短期的，而火山爆发或者小行星撞击的效果很可能是长期的，是否可举其它有长期影响的例子)
In sum, the author’s evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the author’s argument that the cooling is determined by a huge volcanic eruption. Unless the arguer can provide concrete evidence concerning other possibilities and a firm relationship between volcanic eruption and the cooling, the conclusion cannot be properly drawn.

可能拍得比较狠，一家之言，呵呵