Argument47 【米国有米】第六次作业

bluecathyUID: 2231215

Argument47 [米国有米]第六次作业
作者：bluecathy

[题目]：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.论断的前提是巨响来自火山爆发，而火山爆发导致了气候变化。但论者并没提供任何资料证明巨响和火山爆发相关。而且作者也没有提供任何资料和数据来证明是否是巨响发生前后的气温变化。如果巨响发生前，气温已经开始下降，那么这声巨响也就不能说明任何问题。
2.论断的另一前提，陨石并没有撞击地球，也不一定成立。虽然论者表示了现存资料里没有记录，但并不能排除有关的记录被毁掉了或者还没发现。而撞击时会出现的白光，全球是否都能看见，论者也没有提及，有可能白光在当时有了文字记录的欧洲和亚洲看不见，而在没有人生存和文字记录的南极洲却可得见，所以也并不不能证明地球气温变化和陨石撞击一点关系都没有。
3.除了陨石就是火山，是否在这两种情况之外还会有其他原因造成气温下降呢？作者并没有提供这两个原因的唯一性，也没有提供其他的可能性。若使论点信服，还应提供当时火山喷发及其气温变化数据的具体资料。

[正文]：
In this argument, the author claims that the cooling of the climate in the mid-six century was caused by a volcanic eruption, which was recorded in Asian history data. He illustrates several reasons to conclude it. But if we make a consideration of the evidence, we will find that the arguer doesn't provide enough information to make himself supported.

To begin with, the conclusion is based on that the volcanic eruption cause the cooling of climate and the loud boom represents the volcanic. But he fails to provide any evidence of the inevitability between the loud boom was originated from the volcanic eruption. May the unidentified loud boom be not relative with the volcanic eruption so that it couldn't mean any issue of climate change. Moreover, given that the loud boom originated from the volcanic eruption, the arguer also doesn't provide any evidence or data to demonstrate if the cooling temperature happened after the loud boom. If the temperature had been descending before the loud boom, which couldn't attest anything even more.

Secondly, the premise of the conclusion that large meteorite didn't collide with earth also doesn't come into existence. Although the arguer indicates that there are no extant historical records about the flash of light which was an important sign of the collision, we still couldn't rule out the probability that the correlative records were demolished or had not been found yet. Moreover, the arguer only mentions that a sudden bright flash of light would be created when colliding, but what he doesn't mention is whether the flash of light could be seen from all over the world. If it couldn't, maybe there is a collision in that period of time, and the flash of light could be seen in Antarctica where no man lives and no literal records exists rather than Asia and Europe where literal records existed then. Consequently, it couldn't be testified that the meteorite collision did nothing with the cooling temperature on our earth.

Furthermore, besides the meteorite collision and the volcanic eruption, is there any other matter caused the cooling temperature? Maybe yes, maybe not, but the arguer doesn't prove that the two reasons are the only ones which could lead to the climate change and provide any other possibilities. So without the detailed evidence, the arguer may fail to draw to the conclusion.

To sum up, the arguer's claim is hasty and specious. If he intends to make his conclusion convinced, he should provide more information and data about the volcanic eruption and the temperature change of that time.

laner023UID: 2223653

In this argument, the author claims that the cooling of the climate in the mid-six century was caused by a volcanic eruption, which was recorded in Asian history data. He illustrates several reasons to conclude it. But if we make a consideration of the evidence, we will find that the arguer doesn't provide enough information to make himself supported.

To begin with, the conclusion is based on that the volcanic eruption cause the cooling of climate and the loud boom represents the volcanic.（你这一口气说了两个假设。可是，这里的第一个假设是就是作者的结论阿。你在第一段就把结论给驳了，后面还有必要写吗？） But he fails to provide any evidence of the inevitability between the loud boom was originated from the volcanic eruption. May the unidentified loud boom be not relative with the volcanic eruption so that it couldn't mean any issue of climate change. Moreover, given that the loud boom originated from the volcanic eruption, the arguer also doesn't provide any evidence or data to demonstrate if the cooling temperature happened after the loud boom. If the temperature had been descending before the loud boom, which couldn't attest anything even more.

Secondly, the premise of the conclusion that large meteorite didn't collide with earth also doesn't come into existence. Although the arguer indicates that there are no extant historical records about the flash of light which was an important sign of the collision, we still couldn't rule out the probability that the correlative records were demolished or had not been found yet. Moreover, the arguer only mentions that a sudden bright flash of light would be created when colliding, but what he doesn't mention is whether the flash of light could be seen from all over the world. If it couldn't, maybe there is a collision in that period of time, and the flash of light could (only) be seen in Antarctica where no man lives and no literal records exists rather than Asia and Europe where literal records existed then. Consequently, it couldn't be testified that the meteorite collision did nothing with the cooling temperature on our earth.这段条理很清晰的

Furthermore, besides the meteorite collision and the volcanic eruption, is there any other matter caused the cooling temperature? Maybe yes, maybe not,（I doubt that whether ETS can understand it.） but the arguer doesn't prove that the two reasons are the only ones which could lead to the climate change and provide any other possibilities. So without the detailed evidence, the arguer may fail to draw to the conclusion. (应该加一些alternative explanations.要不然，这段扣除主题句和结论句，就剩下一句话了。而且从大牛们对范文的分析中可也看出，要想拿4分以上的话，这些细节很重要 )

To sum up, the arguer's claim is hasty and specious. If he intends to make his conclusion convinced, he should provide more information and data about the volcanic eruption and the temperature change of that time.
找逻辑错误方面以及文章的大框架没有问题。而且作者很注意单复数，不像我，错误一堆。
但是，问题是你在第一段直接去驳作者的结论。我个人更倾向于，把作者的各个前提假设先驳了，最后攻击其结论。（个人意见，仅供参考。）
注意多举反例