argu47 Smile-A组第五次作业

EmmanuelleUID: 2231740

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.

提纲：
1 只考虑了两种可能原因，未排除其他原因
2 有陨石撞地球未必就一定会有人记录下来，或者有记录但还没发现。不能因为没有发现记录就否认这种可能。
3 有记录类似火山爆发的声音并不意味着就有火山爆发，声音又可能是其他造成的。

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century is the result of a volcanic eruption not a large meteorite colliding. To justify this assert, the speaker cites history records which mention a dimming of the sun and cold temperatures. He/she also cites Asian historical records about a loud boom similar to a volcanic eruption sound. Careful scrutiny on these evidence, however renders it has several fallacies which make the conclusion unconvincing.

The first reason is through all the argument the speaker only takes two possible reasons into account ruling out other possibilities. But there is no evidence that has proved this. Although a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding can cause a dimming of the sun and cold weather, they are not the only reasons. Perhaps some other catastrophe like mountains' moving caused by a huge earthquake or significant change in oceans and sea level due to tsunami. The speaker does not consider these possibilities even not mention other records, which can not draw any reliable conclusion.

Secondly, the speaker excludes the meteorite colliding based on an assumption that meteorite colliding would create a sudden bright flash of light and if colliding happened people should have recorded it which is a fallacy. No theory has been given that meteorite colliding must create bright light. Even assuming this, ancient people may not record either. The population in ancient is low and if the colliding occurred on the land where few people lived or the planet collided in the sea it’s probable nobody saw the phenomenon. Perhaps some people did see the light but they had not be educated so even if they wanted to record they did not know how. Furthermore, it’s also possible that those records about the colliding have not been discovered yet having found nothing does not mean having nothing at all. Without accounting these circumstances, the speaker's exclusion can not be taken seriously.

Finally, the speaker cites the record about a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption to illustrate volcanic eruption is the reason. We have no idea whether these Asian historical records are authoritative or not and if they were found in a poem or others which not written by scientists the records may not be credible. Apart from this, a loud boom can be caused by so many reasons including thundering, earthquake, or made by animals even human beings. It's fallacious to think that it represents a volcanic eruption. And a volcanic eruption must have many other much more convincing phenomena like hot magma and polluted air but no records of them has been cited. As a consequence the reason of volcanic eruption can not be confirmed.
  
In sum, the argument is specious. Though the speaker cites many records as evidence, lacking of accounting for other possibilities and doubtful assumptions make the conclusion not reliable. To bolster it, we need more information and records in history about the temperature and natural phenomena. And other possible reasons for cooling should be considered too.

[ 本帖最后由 Emmanuelle 于 2006-8-1 20:03 编辑 ]

猫猫寿司UID: 2219543

提纲：
1 只考虑了两种可能原因，未排除其他原因
2 有行星撞地球未必就一定会有人记录下来，或者有记录但还没发现。不能因为没有发现记录就否认这种可能。
3 有记录类似火山爆发的声音并不意味着就有火山爆发，声音又可能是其他造成的。
哈哈，提纲和我想的完全一样

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century is the result of a volcanic eruption not a large meteorite colliding. To justify this assert, the speaker cites history records which mention a dimming of the sun and cold temperatures. He/she also cites Asian historical records about a loud boom similar to a volcanic eruption sound. Careful scrutiny on these evidence, however renders it has several fallacies which make the conclusion unconvincing.

The first reason is through all the argument the speaker only takes two possible reasons into account ruling out other possibilities. But there is no evidence that has proved this.can illustrate this Although a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding can cause a dimming of the sun and cold weather, they are not the only reasons. Perhaps some other catastrophe like mountains' moving caused by a huge earthquake or significant change in oceans and sea level due to tsunami. 海啸不会造成海平面高度变化的吧，这个好像不太合适The speaker does not consider these possibilities even not mention other records, which can not draw any reliable conclusion.这句话不太对哦两个not中间应该去掉后一个吧

Secondly, the speaker excludes the meteorite colliding based on an assumption that meteorite colliding would create a sudden bright flash of light and if colliding happened people should have recorded it，没有逗号会有歧义的 which is a fallacy. No theory has been given to show that meteorite colliding must create bright light. Even assuming this, ancient people may not record either. The population in ancient is low and if the colliding occurred on the land where few people lived or the planet妹子，行星和陨石好像是两个 概念哦 ~有点不合适collided in the sea it’s probable nobody saw the phenomenon. Perhaps some people did see the light but they had not be educated so even if they wanted to record they did not know how. Furthermore, it’s also possible that those records about the colliding have not been discovered， yet having found nothing does not mean having nothing at all. Without accounting these circumstances, the speaker's exclusion can not be taken seriously.

Finally, the speaker cites the record about a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption to illustrate volcanic eruption is the reason. We have no idea whether these Asian historical records are authoritative or not and if they were found in a poem or others which not written by scientists the records may not be credible.这个会不会有点强词夺理的感觉呢？ Apart from this, a loud boom can be caused by so many reasons including thundering, earthquake, or made by animals even human beings. It's fallacious to think that it represents a volcanic eruption. And a volcanic eruption must have many other much more 乖乖，一下子四个副词阿convincing phenomena like hot magma and polluted air but no records of them has been cited. As a consequence the reason of volcanic eruption can not be confirmed.
  
In sum, the argument is specious. Though the speaker cites many records as evidence, lacking of accounting for other possibilities and doubtful assumptions make the conclusion not reliable. To bolster it, we need more information and records in history about the temperature and natural phenomena. And other possible reasons for cooling should be considered too.

哈哈，不错丫头
已阅

xinxinwUID: 2144273

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the cooling of earth in the mid-sixth century is the result of a volcanic eruption not a large meteorite colliding. To justify this assert, the speaker cites history records which mention a dimming of the sun and cold temperatures. He/she also cites Asian historical records about a loud boom similar to a volcanic eruption sound. Careful scrutiny on these evidence, however renders it has several fallacies which make the conclusion unconvincing.

The first reason is through all the argument the speaker only takes two possible reasons into account ruling out other possibilities. But there is no evidence that has proved this. Although a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding can cause a dimming of the sun and cold weather, they are not the only reasons. Perhaps some other catastrophe like mountains' moving caused by a huge earthquake or significant change in oceans and sea level due to tsunami. The speaker does not consider these possibilities even not mention other records, which can not draw any reliable conclusion.

Secondly, the speaker excludes the meteorite colliding based 语态不对on an assumption that meteorite colliding would create a sudden bright flash of light and if colliding happened people should have recorded it which is a fallacy语法好像有问题. No theory has been given that meteorite colliding must create bright light. Even assuming this, ancient people may not record （it）either. The population in ancient is low and if the colliding occurred on the land where few people lived or the planet collided in the sea it’s probable nobody saw the phenomenon. Perhaps some people did see the light but they had not be educated so even if they wanted to record they did not know how. Furthermore, it’s also possible that those records about the colliding have not been discovered yet having found nothing does not mean having nothing at all. Without accounting these circumstances, the speaker's exclusion can not be taken seriously.

Finally, the speaker cites the record about a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption to illustrate volcanic eruption is the reason. We have no idea whether these Asian historical records are authoritative or not and if they were found in a poem or others which not written by scientists the records may not be credible. Apart from this, a loud boom can be caused by so many reasons including thundering, earthquake, or made by animals even human beings. It's fallacious to think that it represents a volcanic eruption. And a volcanic eruption must have many other much more convincing phenomena like hot magma and polluted air but no records of them has been cited. As a consequence the reason of volcanic eruption can not be confirmed.
  
In sum, the argument is specious. Though the speaker cites many records as evidence, lacking of accounting for other possibilities and doubtful assumptions make the conclusion not reliable. To bolster it, we need more information and records in history about the temperature and natural phenomena. And other possible reasons for cooling should be considered too.

错误找得不错，但是叙述的语言有点绕，读起来不是非常的顺畅