argument47 [0710G +U Aug小组]第11次作业

571633UID: 2333480

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.


Citing the earth suddenly became significantly cooler, the arguer concludes an assumption that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption because some historical records said both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperature while it was only the result of the volcanic eruption. At the first glance of the argument, this opinion seems reasonable to some extent. Nevertheless, further reflection tells me that the arguer ignores many practical problems.

First of all, the arguer rests on the gratuitous assumptions that the huge volcanic eruption and the large meteorite colliding with Earth are the only factors that made the Earth a large dust cloud. However, it is highly possible that other phenomena maybe happened such as a heavy rain or the duststorm. I can hardly ascribe it to the perversity on my part but to the inconsequence of the assumption, which is deficient in common sense that I can not quite reconcile myself to the question.

Quite apart from the logistic problem, it is said that no extant historical records mention a flash made by the meteorite collision while some mention a loud boom at that time, consequently the cooling of the earth was made by the volcanic eruption rather than the meteorite collision. However, it is open to doubt because meteorite collision maybe happened although none of the records mention it. Consequently any decision aiming at the problem of find the actual cause of the problem should be based on more through and comprehensive information to gather sufficient data in order to identity the actual cause of the problem.

Moreover, it is said that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption is open to doubt and this fact can hardly lend strong support to the assumption. For example, there are many factors may contribute the loud boom such as the ground sea and meteorite collision. Therefore, we need more information about the loud boom.

Simply put, the arguer's recommendation is not well presented because it is based on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before we can accept it, the arguer should provide more information - through a local survey or study - that whether the meteorite collision is happened. What's more, the arguer should give more information about the historical records rather than relying on this slim information.

[ 本帖最后由 571633 于 2007-8-5 20:49 编辑 ]

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

Citing the earth suddenly became significantly cooler, the arguer concludes an assumption（concludes an assumption 可以这样搭配吗？) that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption because some historical records said both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperature while it was only the result of the volcanic eruption. At the first glance of the argument, this opinion seems reasonable to some extent. Nevertheless, further reflection tells me that the arguer ignores many practical problems.

First of all, the arguer rests on the gratuitous assumptions that the huge volcanic eruption and the large meteorite colliding with Earth are the only （two）factors that made the Earth a large dust cloud. However, it is highly possible that other phenomena maybe happened such as a heavy rain or the dust storm（heavy rain 可以 made the earth a large dust??）. I can hardly ascribe it to the perversity on my part but to the inconsequence of the assumption, which is deficient in common sense that I can not quite reconcile myself to the question.（最后一句用在这里好像不是很合适，没有加强反驳的力度，只是模板里的句子。）

Quite apart from the logistic problem, it is said that no extant historical records mention a flash made by the meteorite collision while some mention a loud boom at that time, consequently the cooling of the earth was made by the volcanic eruption rather than the meteorite collision. However, it is open to doubt because meteorite collision maybe happened although none of the records mention it. （这句谈得很好，只是在希望后面再得到扩展）Consequently any decision aiming at the problem of find the actual cause of the problem should be based on more through and comprehensive information to gather sufficient data in order to identity the actual cause of the problem.

Moreover, it is said that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption is open to doubt and this fact can hardly lend strong support to the assumption. For example, there are many factors may contribute the loud boom such as the ground sea and meteorite collision. Therefore, we need more information about the loud boom.

Simply put, the arguer's recommendation is not well presented because it is based on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before we can accept it, the arguer should provide more information - through a local survey or study - that whether the meteorite collision is happened. (论证的不是这点啊，论证的是地球变冷是因为陨星坠落啊～) What's more, the arguer should give more information about the historical records rather than relying on this slim information.

现在看你的文章，写A已经写得定型了啊。不过感觉，你虽然找的反驳点都对了，可是扩展开来说的时候不够具体。希望再具体点来加强反驳力度。
最近改你作文可能有点拖后了，实在不好意思啊。。事情有点多就有些倦怠了～
你这么坚持地写，向你学习了～！！