argument47 自习题目,欢迎交流

yuzhongwumeiUID: 2155222

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 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.

In this statement, the author claims that it was a volcanic that caused the cooling of the earth in the mid-sixth century. He tries to convince us by presenting background knowledge and historical records. He brings forward two possibilities which contributed to the cooling. However, his statement suffers from some logical fallacies, which weaken the persuasion of his conclusion.

First, the author tells us a background knowledge that a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light. Assuming this proposition is right, however, the author follows with “no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash”. Above all, no records are found does not mean there was no such phenomenon at all. It is highly possible that the people at that time failed to record it as documentation. And it is also highly possible that though the people did record it timely, the documentation unfortunately got lost in some later time. Moreover, let us pay attention to the word “probably” from the author’s statement. “Probably” indicates that even if there was a large collision, there was not necessarily a bright flash of light. Only through no extant historical records of the flash, the author cannot get the conclusion that there was no collision. Therefore, the author cannot rule out the possibility that the cooling of earth was because of a large meteorite collision.

Moreover, the author states that surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. First, we cannot prove the validity of the records. If the people of that time made a mistake, contemporary hypothesis will be incorrect. Second, even if the record has been validated, however, a loud boom was consistent with a volcanic eruption does not prove that the sound was caused by volcanic eruption. Third, even if the sound was because of a volcanic eruption, it cannot lead to the conclusion that it was the exact eruption that caused the cooling. Finally, some Asian records are not sufficient to hypothesize the condition of the world.

Last but not least, the author commits a fallacy of false dilemma. Without giving any evidence or reason, the author assumes the cooling of the earth has only two possible causes. On one hand, there may be other reasons that lead to the cooling of the earth, the explanation of which can be given by scientists. Even he is able to rule out one possibility, the other is not necessarily right. On the other hand, the cooling might not be caused exclusively by one reason. It is highly possible that it was caused by both large collision and volcanic eruption.

In conclusion, the author fails to prove that his conclusion is right. To be objective, he should first prove the validity of the assumption, which suggests the various possibilities of the causes of cooling. Then, he should prove or rule out one by one, with detail records and statistics, and rational analysis. Unless he brings forward convincing evidence and correct his logical fallacies, the conclusion will be still open to doubt.

要是有谁碰巧写了就交流一下啊~~