Argument47 [Smile A]第五次作业

枫晰UID: 2123661

In this argument, the arguer concluded that the result of the cooling of the earth in mid-six century was a volcanic eruption, rather than the large meteorite collision, to justify the conclusion, the arguer notes some surviving historical recording. However the conclusion was established on a series of ungrounded assumption and recording, rending it unconvincing.

First,  the  factor that a large dust cloud throughout earth's atmosphere block the sunlight to penetrate the arguer presents, cannot be the exclusive explanation to the lower temperature of the earth without considering other possibilities. For example, It is entirely possible that change of the orbit around the sun makes the distance from the earth to the sun further than before, therefore the energy transporting from the sun will reduce, and the earth will certainly cooler than before. Furthermore large meteorite collision and a huge volcanic eruption are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives that lead to the huge dust cloud. A tremendous forest fire may also cause the large dust cloud. Without ruling out these factors, the arguer cannot draw out that conclusion.

Secondly, no surviving historical records of time mention the flash created by the collision does not means that the collision has not happened in history. Perhaps that the historical record about the flash existing in some place haven't been discovered by the historians ,or perhaps once there was such a record but it was destroyed in the war or for some cases.

Thirdly the mere fact that the surviving records mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption can not lend the support the conclusion. No evidence has been provided to support the loud boom is really a volcanic eruption, may be it just a thunder, or earthquake. Even if the sound is made by erupting of the volcano, dose it is huge enough to create a dust cloud is still unknown.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands .To bolster it, the arguer must provide more information to justify the cause of the phenomenon of the cooling and more historic record or other evidence to proof it.

hes2000abcUID: 2154084

In this argument, the arguer concluded that the result of the cooling of the earth in mid-six century was a volcanic eruption, rather than the large meteorite collision, to justify the conclusion, the arguer notes some surviving historical recording. However the conclusion was established on a series of ungrounded assumption and recording, rending it unconvincing.

First,  the  factor that a large dust cloud throughout earth's atmosphere block the sunlight to penetrate the arguer presents, cannot be the exclusive explanation to the lower temperature of the earth without considering other possibilities. For example, It is entirely possible that change of the orbit around the sun makes the distance from the earth to the sun further than before, therefore the energy transporting from the sun will reduce, and the earth will certainly cooler than before. Furthermore large meteorite collision and a huge volcanic eruption are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives that lead to the huge dust cloud. A tremendous forest fire may also cause the large dust cloud. Without ruling out these factors, the arguer cannot draw out that conclusion.

Secondly, no surviving historical records of time mentioned the flash created by the collision does not means that the collision has not happened in history. Perhaps that the historical record about the flash existing in some places haven't been discovered by the historians ,or perhaps once there was such a record but it was destroyed in the war or for some cases.

Thirdly the mere fact that the surviving records mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption can not lend the support the conclusion. No evidence has been provided to support the loud boom is really a volcanic eruption, maybe it just a thunder, or earthquake. Even if the sound is made by erupting of the volcano, dose it is huge enough to create a dust cloud is still unknown.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands .To bolster it, the arguer must provide more information to justify the cause of the phenomenon of the cooling and more historic records or other evidences to proof it.
写的不错,字数再多一些,充实一点可能会更好.

[ 本帖最后由 hes2000abc 于 2006-8-2 11:24 编辑 ]