argument47 sweetbox第九次作业

zoe797970UID: 2249886

The claim that the earth cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption seems somewhat reasonable at first glance. After all, the arguer does offer some relevant evidence, and the assumptions weakening this argument are not without any merit. However, three important concerns which he/she fails to take into account may undermine the argument seriously.

In the first place, the argument presents a false dilemma, since the meteorite collision and volcanic eruption are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives. On the one hand, the two reasons the arguer takes into account might lead to the cooling at the same time; on the other hand, he/she ignores other factors-- such as the internal abnormal activities of earth, the decline of sun radiation, and changes of geomagnetism-- which may be more important in determining the average temperature of earth. Any of the above scenarios, if true, would cause seriously doubt to this argument.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that no extant historical records equal no meteorite collision happened during that period. For one thing, those records about meteorite collision might had been destroyed or disappeared for some reasons, such as wars or fire; for another thing, the arguer only mentions the records in Asian and Europe, what if the collision broke out in the south hemisphere? Then it was possible the ancient north people could learn it without some advanced equipment such as telescope or remote sensor.

What further weakens the argument is any further linkage of volcanic eruption and earth cooling requires more evidence. The arguer fails to give more convincing evidence about the causal relationship between them and jumps to the presumptuous conclusion that volcanic could undoubtedly lead to earth cooling. Without more theories of geography, meteorology and some related sciences, the assumption is simply an unproven claim.

As it stands, this argument suffers from three critical flaws. To strengthen it, the arguer would have to demonstrate there is no other factors might lead to the earth cooling. Furthermore, he/she must provide enough and acceptable evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might undermine the argument.