Argument47 [0710G summer小组]第五次作业_by 冰河

冰河UID: 2302448

TOPIC: 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.
WORDS: 410          TIME: 1:51:20          DATE: 2007-2-4
1阳光变暗未必由于火山喷发或陨石撞击造成，有可能是太阳自身活动减弱
2没有记录未必撞击的现象就没有发生，可能是发生在南半球或是纪录不完整
3可能是多方面原因的综合结果而非单一原因
      In this argument, the speaker attributes Earth suddenly becoming cooler in the mid-sixth century to a volcanic eruption. To support his assertion, the speaker rules out the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with Earth, which serves as an alternative cause of creating a large dust cloud that can block sunlight significantly, as no extant historical records of a flash, and points out that a huge volcanic eruption happened during that time as a loud boom is recorded. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.
      First, the speaker unfairly assumes that the dimming of the sun and the decreasing of the temperature can only because a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. In fact, other factors may also have the same consequences. It is well known that the climate of the Earth depends, to a large extent, on the intensity of the activity of the Sun. If the activity of the Sun was just at the low point in mid-sixth century, the same things may also happen.
      Another fundamental problem with the argument is that the arguer eliminates the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with Earth just for the reason that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright flash of light, which is thought to be consistent with it.  On the one hand, historical records attainable are only limited in Asia and Europe and if the collision occurred in the south earth, people living in the north atmosphere can not observe it, or rather record it. On the other hand, since the records are incomplete, it is possible that the flash was recorded at that time but forgotten later. If it is the case, it might be mistake to deny the collision. Besides a loud boom recorded in Asian may be caused by a rainstorm or an earthquake, rather than a volcanic eruption.
      Finally, the speaker unfairly assumes that the change of sunlight and temperature to only one reason. Perhaps the intensity of the Sun was not strong, meanwhile a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth occurred, and then the combination of all effects leads to the change of climate.
      In conclusion, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better assess the argument, I would need more historical records to determine that a huge volcanic eruption happened in the mid-sixth century and to rule out all the other possibility that might cause the environmental change.

rainyni0812UID: 2186847

1阳光变暗未必由于火山喷发或陨石撞击造成，有可能是太阳自身活动减弱
2没有记录未必撞击的现象就没有发生，可能是发生在南半球或是纪录不完整
3可能是多方面原因的综合结果而非单一原因
      In this argument, the speaker attributes Earth suddenly becoming cooler in the mid-sixth century to a volcanic eruption. To support his assertion, the speaker rules out the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with Earth, which serves as an alternative cause of creating a large dust cloud that can block sunlight significantly in the argument(指出在这篇文章里边是一个二者选其一的原因), as no extant historical records of a flash, and points out that a huge volcanic eruption happened during that time as a loud boom is recorded. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.
      First, the speaker unfairly assumes that the dimming of the sun and the decreasing of the temperature can only because a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth. In fact, other factors may also have the same consequences. It is well known that the climate of the Earth depends, to a large extent, on the intensity of the activity of the Sun.（假设总结的很好） If the activity of the Sun was just at the low point in mid-sixth century, the same things may also happen.
      Another fundamental problem with the argument is that the arguer eliminates the possibility of a large meteorite colliding with Earth just for the reason that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright flash of light, which is thought to be consistent with it.  On the one hand, historical records attainable are only limited in Asia and Europe and if the collision occurred in the south earth, people living in the north atmosphere can not observe it, or rather record it. On the other hand, since the records are incomplete, it is possible that the flash was recorded at that time but forgotten later.（记录了又被忘记了是什么意思？是不是发生过又被忘记了？） If it is the case, it might be mistake to deny the collision. Besides a loud boom recorded in Asian may be caused by a rainstorm or an earthquake, rather than a volcanic eruption.（这个是不是单列一段来说明）
      Finally, the speaker unfairly assumes that the change of sunlight and temperature to only one reason. Perhaps the intensity of the Sun was not strong, meanwhile a huge volcanic eruption and a large meteorite colliding with Earth occurred, and then the combination of all effects leads to the change of climate.（这一段和第一段有重叠的地方，都是说要考虑他因，是不是归结一段批判）
      In conclusion, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better assess the argument, I would need more historical records to determine that a huge volcanic eruption happened in the mid-sixth century and to rule out all the other possibility that might cause the environmental change.
今天的argument写起来感觉错误没有那么清晰可辨，可能是因为自己这方面的常识比较少，所提意见仅供参考。