ARGUMENT47 [Victors小组]第五次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

47. 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 emperatures 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.

45min  614 words

In this argument, the author concludes that the cooling weather in the mid-sixth century on Earth might caused by a volcanic eruption which induced the sunlight block. To justify this conclusion, the author cites the historical records indicating lower temperature in Asia and Europe and the dimming of the sun at that time. Moreover, the author claims that the volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding with Earth should be responsible for the sunlight block and the latter cause could be eliminated since no record indicating a flash, while remaining Asian historical records mentioned the loud boom at that time. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the global weather was cooler in the mid-sixth century simply based on the accounts found in Asia and Europe. No evidence is indicated in the passage concerns about the weather changes all over the world at that time. It is totally possible that in Africa or other continents, the average temperature is much higher than before so that the temperature changes mentioned in the passage is just the local weather change. Without eliminate or even consider such possibility, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption that there was the weather change during mid-sixth century on Earth.

If it is true that in mid-sixth century Earth suddenly became cooler, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the dimming of the sun and the cold weather. The only relation mentioned in the upper passage is that these two events happened at the same time, which could be little value to verify the author's assumption. Maybe at that time, there were extreme glacial melting on Earth which absorbed large amounts of energy thus induced the cooler weather on this planet, or perhaps it was just the periodical global weather fluctuation which might happen every hundreds of years. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the assumption that sun dimming attributes to the cooler weather on Earth.

Assuming that less sunlight reached the Earth caused the lower temperature on this planet, the author claims without evidence that only volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding could be the reason. It is totally possible that other events such as some big bang in the cosmos might block the sun radiation, or maybe other meteorological phenomena, like abnormal ozone condensation around Earth, decreased the amount of the energy derived from the sun.

Besides, the author alleges that no meteorite colliding happened around that time since no existent record concerning about flash around that time. Without proof is not a proof. Maybe people failed to document the phenomenon, or perhaps the severe meteorite colliding on Earth nearly destroyed every creature, including important records. Or even next month there would be the breakthrough confirming the meteorite colliding happened during that time. Until the author completes the analysis, the conclusion that volcanic eruption induced great weather change on Earth could not be taken seriously.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, to author should provide more evidence--maybe by more historical records or other geological findings all over the world-- to show that global temperature went down during that time. In addition, the author should rule out other possibilities that might induce less sunlight on Earth in order to establish the causal relationship between sun dimming and lower temperature. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there's other possibility, other than volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding, to induce sun dimming and if it is true that no volcanic eruption happened on Earth during that period of time.

solartorchUID: 2244205

In this argument, the author concludes that the cooling weather in the mid-sixth century on Earth might caused by a volcanic eruption which induced the sunlight block. To justify this conclusion, the author cites the historical records indicating lower temperature in Asia and Europe and the dimming of the sun at that time. Moreover, the author claims that the volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding with Earth should be responsible for the sunlight block and the latter cause could be eliminated since no record indicating a flash, while remaining Asian historical records mentioned the loud boom at that time. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.第一段重复argument引出下文，关于开头restate的问题，楼主可以去看一看精华贴。

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the global weather was cooler in the mid-sixth century simply based on the accounts found in Asia and Europe. No evidence is indicated in the passage concerns about the weather changes all over the world at that time. It is totally possible that in Africa or other continents, the average temperature is much higher than before so that the temperature changes mentioned in the passage is just the local weather change. Without eliminate or even consider such possibility, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption that there was the改成a weather change during mid-sixth century on Earth. 第一点说地点不能以偏概全

If it is true that in mid-sixth century Earth suddenly became cooler, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the dimming of the sun and the cold weather. The only relation mentioned in the upper passage is that these two events happened at the same time, which could be little value to verify the author's assumption. Maybe at that time, there were extreme glacial melting on Earth which absorbed large amounts of energy thus induced the cooler weather on this planet, or perhaps it was just the periodical global weather fluctuation which might happen every hundreds of years. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the assumption that sun dimming attributes to the cooler weather on Earth. 第二点说dimming of sun不是唯一原因

Assuming that less sunlight reached the Earth caused the lower temperature on this planet, the author claims without evidence that only volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding could be the reason. It is totally possible that other events such as some big bang in the cosmos might block the sun radiation, or maybe other meteorological phenomena, like abnormal ozone condensation around Earth, decreased the amount of the energy derived from the sun. 第三点说less sunlight的原因不是仅仅两点

Besides, the author alleges that no meteorite colliding happened around that time since no existent record concerning about flash around that time. Without proof is not a proof.我对这句话的用法不大清楚，觉得有点奇怪。想知道出处。 Maybe people failed to document the phenomenon, or perhaps the severe meteorite colliding on Earth nearly destroyed every creature, including important records.这儿写得有点夸张，every creature都被destroy了哪儿来的records... Or even next month there would be the breakthrough confirming the meteorite colliding happened during that time. Until the author completes the analysis, the conclusion that volcanic eruption induced great weather change on Earth could not be taken seriously.第四点说不能排除没有meteorite colliding

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, to author should provide more evidence--maybe by more historical records or other geological findings all over the world-- to show that global temperature went down during that time. In addition, the author should rule out other possibilities that might induce less sunlight on Earth in order to establish the causal relationship between sun dimming and lower temperature. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there's other possibility, other than volcanic eruption and meteorite colliding, to induce sun dimming and if it is true that no volcanic eruption笔误啊呵呵 happened on Earth during that period of time. 最后一段重复以上四点

总结一下，观点清晰，语言准确，用时不多。楼主大有前途啊，非常佩服。建议考试的时候由于时间问题首尾段缩减一点，完美了。

[ 本帖最后由 solartorch 于 2007-5-19 18:15 编辑 ]