argument47

蔓草菊UID: 2195399

Argument47
1温度变低不一定是这2个原因引起的（他因：太阳周期运行轨道变化，地球本身在演化）
2没有闪光的记载不代表没发生过撞击（闪光太不明显没记载），有巨响不代表就是火山爆发（重物倒塌）
3 就算能证实亚洲发生过火山爆发不一定就代表欧洲地区也一样，也许是（撞击引起的）
The arguer in this argument concludes that in the mid-sixth century the cooling all over the world was caused by a volcanic eruption. To support the claim the arguer assumes that a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth is able to block enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. Then the arguer further points out that a large meteorite collision is not likely to happen because no extant historical records of the time mention a flash which a meteorite collision probably creates. Moreover, the arguer renders that a loud boom was recorded, alluding that a volcanic eruption happened. At first glance, the argument seems logical. However, a careful examination can reveal how groundless it is.
In the first place, the arguer bases his conclusion on the assumption that the cooling of the earth was due to a volcanic eruption or a meteorite collision with earth. However, the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate that assumption. There are other possible causes the arguer may overlook. Perhaps, the cooling was caused by the periodical change of the sun’s orbit to a farther position, or perhaps earth experienced a normal process to evolve in mid-sixth century. Without ruling out such possible alternatives affection the temperature of earth, the arguer cannot make his conclusion credible.
In the second place, even if the cooling was caused due to the two reasons mentioned by the arguer, the exclusion of meteorite collision seems unreasonable. On one hand, the mere fact that no records of a flash which a meteorite collision probable produces exist does not necessarily indicate that a meteorite collision did not happen in the mid-sixth century. It is likely that the flash was not so obvious and ancient people paid no attention to it. Therefore, the claim that a meteorite collision did not happen cannot be convinced. On the other hand, the arguer unsafely infers that volcanic eruption did happen from the fact that a loud boom was recorded, although a loud boom is usually consistent with a volcanic eruption. However, the arguer offers no evidence that the loud boom was caused by a volcanic eruption. Maybe, the loud boom was just the sound from other huge objects collapsing. So, the arguer still cannot convince us that a volcanic eruption did happen at that time.
Last but not least, even if the loud boom can be substantiated that a volcanic eruption did happen in Asian it does not indicate that volcanic eruption also happened in Europe or other places and caused the cooling. Maybe the cooling in Europe was due to other factors such as meteorite collision with earth rather than volcanic eruption. Therefore, the arguer cannot prove that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was due to a volcanic eruption.
In sum, the argument is not credible and evidence cited in it lends little support to what the arguer want to maintain. To bolster this argument, the arguer would have to provide more persuasive evidence that the loud boom was created by a volcanic eruption and meteorite collision did not happen in the mid-sixth century.