argument47 [0710G-summer小组]

dragonraceUID: 178536

[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.

[中文提纲]
1.eithei...or错误。不仅仅有两种可能的原因。
2.即便只有上述两种可能，则A有可能正确，B有可能错误。
（找出的逻辑错误可能不全，希望大家指教）

[argument47]
words:  416    time: 30 minutes

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence,the statement draws the conclusion that a volcanic eruption should be the cause of the cooling in the mid-sixth century.To substantiate the conclusion,the author points out the two possible reasons for the significantly cool climate.Then he indicates that the second reason,large meteorite conlliding with earth did not happen because of the lack of records.Additionally,he cites a loud boom could be the proof of the large meteorite conlliding.However,these alone do not constitute a logical statement in favor of its conclusion and fails to provide convincing evidence,making this statement invulnerable and sound.As far as I am concerned,this argument suffers from several flaws.

To begin with,even assuming that large meteorite conlliding with earth is not the reason for the cooling in the mid-sixth century,the author falsely assumes the coolingmust be attributable to a volcanic eruption.This "either-or" argument is fallacious in that it ignores other possible causes of the cool climate.For example,perhaps some special activities such as buring forest caused the large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere or it stemed from some astronomical changes of the sun itself.Without ruling out such possible reasons,the author could not convinced me of his conclusion.

On the other hand,even if there are only two reasons resulted in the cooling in the mid-sixth century,the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.First,he states that large meteorite conlliding with earth did not happen because of the lack of records.There is no evidence supporting his conclusion just as the statement in the argument,"few historical records survive from that time".For another respective,the author concinced a huge volcanic happening at that time just according to a loud boom but he fails to give more evidence of the huge volcanic.It is probable that an earthquake happened at that time or even large meteorite conlliding with earth caused this sound.Without giving more evidence above,the conclusion would not be unmistakable.

To sum up,the author fails to strength his conclusion that a volcanic eruption should be the cause of the cooling in he mid-sixth century,because the evidence cited in the statement does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.To make this argument more convincing,the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to other possible reasons probably attribute to the cool climate.In addtion,he would have to demonstrate more credible evidence that large meteorite conlliding with earth did not happen while a volcanic eruption indeed happened resulting in the cooling.Therefore,only with such convincing support,could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

1.第一段是不是太长乐？我看北美上说不建议用太长的开头 北美有的开头长 是因为他想利用长开头来帮助我们理解题 考试的时候不提倡的
2.我觉得argu分析两段太少了，我觉得你可以把第二段分成两段写：一段写没记录闪光不代表没发生行星撞击；一段写隆隆声不一定是火山的声音
3.说实在，这段我觉得攻击点挺少的，所以每个点应该多分析一下吧