arguement47 火山篇 smile-A第五次作业，请指教

猫猫寿司UID: 2219543

Argument 47
47Scientists 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现存的 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.
逻辑线：主：火山爆发——六世纪中期突然变冷
辅线：1有文献表明当时太阳昏暗，地球变冷；火山爆发或者陨石撞地球可能挡住太阳降低温度——不是火山爆发就是陨石撞地球造成
2陨石掉下来可能有强光,没有历史纪录有强光——不是陨石
3 火山爆发有巨响，亚洲文献记载巨响——是火山爆发

Outline:
1.        false dilemma: 不是火山就是陨石
2.        no causal relationship: 没有纪录——没有陨石
3.        vague data 记载的巨响——是火山,
4.        其他：confuse concurrence with causal relationship太阳暗——天气冷

The arguer establishes his conclusion that the sudden cooling in the mid-sixth century on earth was caused by a volcanic eruption basing on two evidences, one of which is that no record indicates a collision of a meteorite and the other is the record of a loud boom which the author assumes to be the illustration of a volcanic eruption. However, after a careful observation, we would find both the conclusion and the evidences themselves are problematic.

First of all, the arguer makes a false assumption committing false dilemma when drawing the conclusion. The mere fact that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower the temperatures does not rule out other possibilities that might contribute to the cooling, such as a change of gravitation in universe that might drag the earth away from the sun which would significantly influence the temperature, or even the cooling did not derive from the dimming of the sun but some other reasons like a break out of a specific chemical gas under earth. Before taking all these contingencies into consideration, I can not be convinced that we should choose the attribution of the cooling between meteorite collision and volcanic eruption, which the conclusion relied on.

Secondly, the speaker unfairly asserts that in the absence of the extant material recording a bright flash of light, which the meteorite collision might create, this kind of clash must be excluded. However, historic materials are not easy to preserve, let alone to find, thus no record can not be simply equated to no occurrence. It stands a good chance that there was a record paper, but decayed before unearthed, or there is still one, lying in some place no one has yet found. Besides, the flash of light is only one possible sign of the meteorite collision which the arguer shows no evidence or specific information to demonstrate its certainty after the collision. Even if it did happen, there is still a great possibility that it may emit in some place devoid of people, and therefore was not observed by the few residents living on earth at that time.

Moreover, the vague data in which only reveals a recorded loud boom can not lend strong, if any, support to illustrate that there was a volcanic eruption as the arguer has mentioned happened at that time. Without the mention of the lava and dust or the burning of the nature around that “volcano”, we might be equally reasonable to suppose that large boom to be the result of a meteorite collision or even an avalanche.

The arguer fails to make a comprehensive analysis of the historic records and thus does not provide us with a cogent argument. To make the article more convincing, a specific data and precise information about the possible volcanic eruption is needed and an overall consideration of other possible causes is still required.
491字
很短的一篇，用时却是最长的
是今天没有手感么？

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

Argument 47
47Scientists 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现存的 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.
逻辑线：主：火山爆发——六世纪中期突然变冷
辅线：1有文献表明当时太阳昏暗，地球变冷；火山爆发或者陨石撞地球可能挡住太阳降低温度——不是火山爆发就是陨石撞地球造成
2陨石掉下来可能有强光,没有历史纪录有强光——不是陨石
3 火山爆发有巨响，亚洲文献记载巨响——是火山爆发

Outline:
1.        false dilemma: 不是火山就是陨石
2.        no causal relationship: 没有纪录——没有陨石
3.        vague data 记载的巨响——是火山,
4.        其他：confuse concurrence with causal relationship太阳暗——天气冷

The arguer establishes his conclusion that the sudden cooling in the mid-sixth century on earth was caused by a volcanic eruption basing on two evidences, one of which is that no record indicates a collision of a meteorite and the other is the record of a loud boom which the author assumes to be the illustration of a volcanic eruption. However, after a careful observation, we would find both the conclusion and the evidences themselves are problematic.

First of all, the arguer makes a false assumption committing false dilemma when drawing the conclusion. The mere fact that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower the temperatures does not rule out other possibilities that might contribute to the cooling, such as a change of gravitation in universe that might drag the earth away from the sun which would significantly influence the temperature [这个理由我也说了，但不知道对否], or even the cooling did not derive from the dimming of the sun but some other reasons like a break out of a specific chemical gas under earth. Before taking all these contingencies into consideration, I can not be convinced that we should choose the attribution of the cooling between meteorite collision and volcanic eruption, which the conclusion relied on.

Secondly, the speaker unfairly asserts that in the absence of the extant material recording a bright flash of light, which the meteorite collision might create, this kind of clash must be excluded. However, historic materials are not easy to preserve, let alone to find, thus no record can not be simply equated to no occurrence. It stands a good chance that there was a record paper, but decayed before unearthed, or there is still one, lying in some place no one has yet found. Besides, the flash of light is only one possible sign of the meteorite collision which the arguer shows no evidence or specific information to demonstrate its certainty after the collision. Even if it did happen, there is still a great possibility that it may emit in some place devoid of people, and therefore was not observed by the few residents living on earth at that time.

Moreover, the vague data in which only reveals a recorded loud boom can not lend strong, if any, support to illustrate that there was a volcanic eruption as the arguer has mentioned happened at that time. Without the mention of the lava and dust or the burning of the nature around that “volcano”, we might be equally reasonable to suppose that large boom to be the result of a meteorite collision or even an avalanche.

The arguer fails to make a comprehensive analysis of the historic records and thus does not provide us with a cogent argument. To make the article more convincing, a specific data and precise information about the possible volcanic eruption is needed and an overall consideration of other possible causes is still required.

总体评介（个人意见，你是高手，不对请见谅）
1 整体结构很好，尤其词句用的太丰富了，我只有学习的份阿。但我感觉找错误有点凌乱
2 就这片A我个人看法如下
1）首先，那个16-mid 变冷是事实，后面的acounts只是佐证而不是充要证据；作者的隐含前提‘dimming of the sun导致地球变冷’正是基于其中的一个佐证；再后面的Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth 是揭示什么导致‘dimming of the sun‘的
2）所以逻辑线为：
Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth -----〉dimming of the sun-----〉significantly cooler
因此攻击顺序为 a dimming of the sun导致地球变冷’ 是无效假设
                      b Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth-----〉dimming of the sun是无效假设                     
                      c boom 和 flash 推出火山有问题
即从最靠近结论的那个推理依次往前，这样只要前面的能服人(比如a)就可以证明结论不成立了，后面b,c即时正确也没有用。

[ 本帖最后由 zhy5186612 于 2006-8-1 19:55 编辑 ]

EmmanuelleUID: 2231740

看咯！对于师姐的作文我只有拜读:L，我跟你的几个攻击点基本一致，不过你的语句很丰富，有些我是肯定想不到的，在此先学学一些用词咯！:)

xinxinwUID: 2144273

The arguer establishes his conclusion that the sudden cooling in the mid-sixth century on earth was caused by a volcanic eruption basing on two evidences, one of which is that no record indicates a collision of a meteorite and the other is the record of a loud boom which the author assumes to be the illustration of a volcanic eruption. However, after a careful observation, we would find both the conclusion and the evidences themselves are problematic.

First of all, the arguer makes a false assumption committing false dilemma when drawing the conclusion. The mere fact that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower the temperatures does not rule out other possibilities that might contribute to the cooling, such as a change of gravitation in universe that might drag the earth away from the sun which would significantly influence the temperature, or even the cooling did not derive from the dimming of the sun but some other reasons like a break out of a specific chemical gas under earth. Before taking all these contingencies into consideration, I can not be convinced that we should choose the attribution of the cooling between meteorite collision and volcanic eruption, which the conclusion relied on.

Secondly, the speaker unfairly asserts that in the absence of the extant material recording a bright flash of light, which the meteorite collision might create, this kind of clash must be excluded. However, historic materials are not easy to preserve, let alone to find, thus no record can not be simply equated to no occurrence. It stands a good chance that there was a record paper, but decayed before unearthed, or there is still one, lying in some place no one has yet found. Besides, the flash of light is only one possible sign of the meteorite collision which the arguer shows no evidence or specific information to demonstrate its certainty after the collision. Even if it did happen, there is still a great possibility that it may emit in some place devoid of people, and therefore was not observed by the few residents living on earth at that time.

Moreover, the vague data in which only reveals a recorded loud boom can not lend strong, if any, support to illustrate that there was a volcanic eruption as the arguer has mentioned happened at that time. Without the mention of the lava and dust or the burning of the nature around that “volcano”, we might be equally reasonable to suppose that large boom to be the result of a meteorite collision or even an avalanche.这段有点心不在焉，攻击的不疼不痒

The arguer fails to make a comprehensive analysis of the historic records and thus does not provide us with a cogent argument. To make the article more convincing, a specific data and precise information about the possible volcanic eruption is needed and an overall consideration of other possible causes is still required.

逻辑没什么问题，语言不会有问题的

猫猫寿司UID: 2219543

呵呵
写写大家的意见！zhy有道理哦~