Argument47 [Smile A]第五次作业

xinxinwUID: 2144273

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.

Outlines:
1. The concurrence of the dimming of the sun and cold temperature does not indicate there would be any cause-and-effect relationship. Some transformation with in the inside the core of the earth could possibly influence the distribution of the terrestrial heat and result in the cold temperature.
2. There may be other causes of the dimming of the sun rather than the two mentioned in the argument.
3. The fact that no records is found dose not necessary indicate inexistence of the flash. It might be buried in some unknown place or have been destroyed.
4. The loud boom may not be created by the volcanic eruption which brought on the dimming of the sun.


The arguer cites the historical records in the mid-sixth century mentioning a loud boom that would be caused by a volcanic eruption to raise the claim that the sudden cooling of the Earth's temperature was caused by a volcanic eruption. The argument seems reasonable at the first sight. But if we examine the argument carefully, we would find that the author commits several logical fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the arguer untenably assumes a false dilemma that the lower global temperatures were result of either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. There are many other causes that could result in a dimming of the sun, which arguer regards as the reason of the drop of global cooling and turn out to be another rootless assumption. For instance, it might be the sudden decrease of the activity of the sun that have caused the dimming of the sun. Without ruling out all other possible reasons of the phenomenon, the arguer's assumption that the drop of temperature was caused by either one of the alternatives in the argument is ungrounded.

Secondly, the arguer falsely treats the lack of evidence supporting the existence of the meteorite collision as the disapproval against it. Although few historical records, as the arguer said in the argument himself, were found presently, it is entirely possible, however, that some evidence that indicating the existence of the meteorically collision will be discovered some day in the future. If true, it would serve as perfect disapproval against the arguer's hasty assumption.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the recorded loud boom, in itself, is not a decisive evidence of a volcanic eruption. The arguer fails to exclude other causes of a loud boom, including earthquakes and big thunders. Even if it was the case, the volcanic eruption may not be big enough to have caused the dust cloud that blocking sunlight to lower global temperatures. Lacking data concerning the effect of the claimed volcanic eruption, the conclusion is at best a conjunction, rather than well reasoned argument.

In conclusion, this argument lacks credulity because the arguer provides no direct evidence supporting the conclusion that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to find substantial evidence indicating the existence of a huge volcanic eruption at the time. Also, the impact of the eruption, such as the dust cloud it created, is required to be carefully analyzed.


期待阿

EmmanuelleUID: 2231740

The arguer cites the historical records in the mid-sixth century mentioning a loud boom that would be caused by a volcanic eruption to raise the claim that the sudden cooling of the Earth's temperature was caused by a volcanic eruption. The argument seems reasonable at the first sight. But if we examine the argument carefully, we would find that the author commits several logical fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the arguer untenably assumes a false dilemma that the lower global temperatures were result of either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. There are many other causes that could result in a dimming of the sun, which arguer regards as the reason of the drop of global cooling and turn out to be another rootless assumption(这句好像跟本段TS不一致). For instance, it might be the sudden decrease of the activity of the sun that have caused the dimming of the sun. Without ruling out all other possible reasons of the phenomenon, the arguer's assumption that the drop of temperature was caused by either one of the alternatives in the argument is ungrounded.

Secondly, the arguer falsely treats the lack of evidence supporting the existence of the meteorite collision as the disapproval against it. Although few historical records, as the arguer said in the argument himself, were found presently, it is entirely possible, however, that some evidence that indicating the existence of the meteorically collision will be discovered some day in the future. If true, it would serve as perfect disapproval against the arguer's hasty assumption.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the recorded loud boom, in itself, is not a decisive evidence of a volcanic eruption. The arguer fails to exclude other causes of a loud boom, including earthquakes and big thunders. Even if it was the case, the volcanic eruption may not be big enough to have caused the dust cloud that blocking sunlight to lower global temperatures. Lacking data concerning the effect of the claimed volcanic eruption, the conclusion is at best a conjunction, rather than well reasoned argument.

In conclusion, this argument lacks credulity because the arguer provides no direct evidence supporting the conclusion that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to find substantial evidence indicating the existence of a huge volcanic eruption at the time. Also, the impact of the eruption, such as the dust cloud it created, is required to be carefully analyzed.


语言没的说，要学习啊！:D （除有个别小错:p）
思路清晰，观点明确。但是第一段好像有点问题，到底是说作者没考虑碰撞和火山以外的可能原因，还是未必dimming of sun light就会导致温度降低？提纲里两点都有，但是第一段里ms写混了。以上个人意见，还是要向xinxinw学习！:)

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

这次我们思路一致哈
不过我把后面两点合并在一块写了

猫猫寿司UID: 2219543

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.

Outlines:
1. The concurrence of the dimming of the sun and cold temperature does not indicate there would be any cause-and-effect relationship. Some transformation with in the inside the core of the earth could possibly influence the distribution of the terrestrial heat and result in the cold temperature.
2. There may be other causes of the dimming of the sun rather than the two mentioned in the argument.
3. The fact that no records is found dose not necessary indicate inexistence of the flash. It might be buried in some unknown place or have been destroyed.
4. The loud boom may not be created by the volcanic eruption which brought on the dimming of the sun.


The arguer cites the historical records in the mid-sixth century mentioning a loud boom that would be caused by a volcanic eruption to raise the claim that the sudden cooling of the Earth's temperature was caused by a volcanic eruption. The argument seems reasonable at the first sight. But if we examine the argument carefully, we would find that the author commits several logical fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the arguer untenably assumes a false dilemma that the lower global temperatures were result of either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. There are many other causes that could result in a dimming of the sun, which arguer regards as the reason of the drop of global cooling and turn out to be another rootless assumption. For instance, it might be the sudden decrease of the activity of the sun that have caused the dimming of the sun. Without ruling out all other possible reasons of the phenomenon, the arguer's assumption that the drop of temperature was caused by either one of the alternatives in the argument is ungrounded.

Secondly, the arguer falsely treats the lack of evidence supporting the existence of the meteorite collision as the disapproval against it.这句满好的，记下来，下次看见不要说我抄袭阿 Although few historical records, as the arguer said in the argument himself性别歧视！, were found presently, it is entirely possible, however, that some evidence that indicating the existence of the meteorically collision will be discovered some day in the future. If true, it would serve as perfect disapproval against the arguer's hasty assumption.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the recorded loud boom, in itself, is not a decisive evidence of a volcanic eruption. The arguer fails to exclude other causes of a loud boom, including earthquakes and big thunders. Even if it was the case, the volcanic eruption may not be big enough to have caused the dust cloud that blocking sunlight to lower global temperatures.这个是不是和这段要说得无关阿 Lacking data concerning the effect of the claimed volcanic eruption, the conclusion is at best a conjunction, rather than well reasoned argument.

In conclusion, this argument lacks credulity这个也是笔误吧 because the arguer provides no direct evidence supporting the conclusion that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to find substantial evidence indicating the existence of a huge volcanic eruption at the time. Also, the impact of the eruption, such as the dust cloud it created, is required to be carefully analyzed.

恩恩，这篇大家的逻辑都是一样一样一样的，哈哈，你false dilemma还是没写嘛，阿是觉得不是重点阿，我也没写
已阅

[ 本帖最后由 猫猫寿司 于 2006-8-1 18:59 编辑 ]

xinxinwUID: 2144273

ft ,我居然把提纲里面的两个要点写混了。该死该死