Argument47 【CSMY作文互改第四小组】第五次作业

ctexUID: 2241178

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.
WORDS: 448          TIME: 上午 12:40:00          DATE: 2007-1-15 In AWP
Words:494  in second edition
In this argument through some analysis, the author alleges that the extremely cold temperatures in the mid-sixth century were caused by a volcanic eruption. Its evidences seem credible at the first glance. However, close scrutiny to them reveals that there are hidden flaws as follows.

To begin with, whether the extremely cold was caused by a large dust cloud through Earth's atmosphere is open to question since that many other alternative causes might cause that abnormal climate pattern. It is possible that there were abnormal phenomena about the sun that caused the decreased energy transited to the Earth. Now that there was not such records about the sun, so it is too hasty for the author to rule out this possible cause.

Secondly, even granted that the abnormal weather pattern was attributable to these both possible causes either of which can result in a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, to deny the possibility that a meteorite collision brought about the dust, the author cites that there is no extant historical records of the time about the collision. The author mentions that under the circumstances of a collision there would be a sudden bright flash of light. Was the light observed by people? Could the people who had observed the light record it in documentary? Perhaps the collision happened to the Antarctic in which no person live. Again, it is possible that the collision took place a place whose civilization was less developed and in which people could not record history with paper. Even it is entirely possible that the record about the light is still kept form people in some place. The author fails to preclude these possible reasons. So it is unwise for the author to deny the possibility of the collision.

Thirdly, to bolster the possibility of a volcanic eruption, the author provides the evidence that there are some surviving Asian historical records which seems have linkage with a volcanic eruption. The records mention a loud boom that seems to be accord with a volcanic eruption. Was the loud boom caused by a volcanic eruption? Was the volcanic eruption so enormous that it can lead to a large dust cloud? It is possible that the boom was just caused by a something else other than a volcanic eruption. For instance, the boom was nothing more than thunder. Furthermore, even there was a volcanic eruption, it is possible that the eruption was too feeble to block the sunshine. So it is too hasty for the author to investigate these possible causes and draw his conclusion recklessly.

In sum, the reasoning of the author lacks sufficient evidence and well-consideration as discussed above. Far more detailed and deeply scientific research and scrutiny are needed to provide believable evidence showing that the extremely cold temperature was caused by either of the reasons presented in the argument and the loud boom was close link with a volcanic eruption that could block the light form the sun.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this argument through some analysis (不要连用介宾结构, 这个换个句中的位置), the author alleges that the extremely cold temperatures in the mid-sixth century were caused by a volcanic eruption. Its evidences seem credible at the first glance. However, close scrutiny to them reveals that there are hidden flaws as follows.

To begin with, whether the extremely cold was caused by a large dust cloud through Earth's atmosphere is open to question(刚才说火山, 这里说是尘埃, 到底是哪个? 应该先把文章的逻辑顺序理清楚再攻击, 比如加入定语从句a large dust cloud which may be brought by the volcanic eruption as the author deduces) (断句)since that (多余) many other alternative causes might cause that abnormal climate pattern.(这里的攻击很弱: 别的因素会起作用, 那么灰尘就不会了么? 加上which makes it possible the assumed dust cloud did not exist and had nothing to do with the low tempratures) It is possible that there were abnormal phenomena about the sun that caused the decreased energy transited to the Earth.(比如? 风沙, 宇宙尘埃, 等等) Now that there was not such records about the sun, (有太阳的记载, 只是没有dust cloud的记载) so it is too hasty for the author to rule out this possible cause. (which possible cause? And how do they undermine the author's demonstration?)

Secondly, even granted that(省略) the abnormal weather pattern was attributable to these both possible causes (which possible causes?) either of which can result in a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere, to deny the possibility that a meteorite collision brought about the dust, the author cites that there is no extant historical records of the time about the collision.(给你翻译下这句: 即使承认反常天气的原因是两种情况, 因为它们能带来尘埃, 从而依据作者所引用的没有陨石撞击的记录的证据来否认陨石撞击的可能性——你能看懂么？反正我不能。要写什么主题句一定要记清楚，特别是写长句子，实在不行就写短点，这样把自己绕进去了得不常失)(方便下面论述重新写个主题句参考下: even granted the dust cloud did existed and caused the cold weather, the author cannot exclude the possibility that a meteorite collision by merely cited evidence.) The author mentions that under the circumstances of a collision there would be a sudden bright flash of light(but no such a flash is found in records, supporting the author to assert no meteorite hit the earth at that time). (But)Was the light observed by people? Could the people who had observed the light record it in documentary? Perhaps the collision happened to the Antarctic in which (in some places where 不要用具体地点做他因攻击, 这样你自己的余地很小) no person live(d). Again, it is possible that the collision took place a place (in some areas) whose civilization was less developed and in which people could not record history with paper. Even (Moreover/Besides/Also) it is entirely possible that the record about the light is still kept form people in some place. The author fails to preclude these possible reasons. So it is unwise for the author to deny the possibility of the collision.

Thirdly, to bolster the possibility of a volcanic eruption, the author provides the evidence that there are some surviving Asian historical records which seems have linkage with a volcanic eruption(作者判断是火山的依据还有一点, 就是那个dust cloud只可能是陨石或者火山导致的, 然后排除了陨石——错误的排除法在你的文章里漏掉了, 这点很要命. 因为在前一段你已经攻击过陨石说了, 所以这里应该让步说陨石不可能, 那么不攻击作者的陨石或火山二选一的话, 你即使否认了火山也会站不住脚: 不是火山那是什么?). The records mention a loud boom that seems to be accord with a volcanic eruption. Was the loud boom caused by a volcanic eruption?(这句实在没道理要疑问, 直接说With little evidence, the author unfairly assert this loud boom was from a volcanic eruption) Was the volcanic eruption so enormous that it can lead to a large dust cloud? It is possible that the boom was just caused by a something else other than a volcanic eruption. For instance, the boom was nothing more than thunder. Furthermore, even there was a volcanic eruption, it is possible that the eruption was too feeble to block the sunshine.(Then what is the very reason? 他因攻击不应该假设作者的情况的相反情况刚好相反, 因为你也没证据, 你这么置疑不是跟作者处于同一错误上了么? 应该用可能发生的其它情况进行置疑, 对于作者的因果关系的"因"进行替换, 而不是对"因"进行篡改) So it is too hasty for the author to investigate these possible causes(what causes? Causes to what?) and draw his conclusion recklessly.

In sum, the reasoning of the author lacks sufficient evidence and well-consideration as discussed above. Far more detailed and deeply scientific research and scrutiny are needed to provide believable evidence showing that the extremely cold temperature was caused by either of the reasons presented in the argument and the loud boom was close link with a volcanic eruption that could block the light form the sun.

主要问题:
1思路上: 漏了一点, 已经说过了.
写的时候应该对作者的逻辑判断有所认识, 我不太赞同一些人用简洁开头就是因为这样他们还没有弄清题目中的论据和假设及结论的关系就开始攻击了, 结果往往出现疏漏. 如果一开始能把作者的逻辑关系理顺, 那么就好入手多了, 从这道题而言, 作者的分析层次是:
天冷<--太阳昏暗所致<--尘埃云所致<--尘埃云由火山或者陨石导致<--陨石不可能<--火山可能, 所以是火山
每个点都存在论据不足的问题, 对它们本身及它们之间的逻辑关系一一进行批驳才能让作者的论点站不住脚

2论证上: 论证手法单一, 他因使用不当
总是说一句就开始质问, 问完就说It's possible...也不给出你的疑问为什么possible, 就算不给, 至少也给出一些跟作者论点能构成因果关系的他因吧, 不然只指出作者论断不成立的可能性是无法驳倒作者的, 因为你的证据是其它可能性的存在, 而这些可能性是能够导致最后现象发生的.