argument47 [0710G +U小组] --xiefen0223--第11次作业

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To support his conclusion, he points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth could result to a large dust cloud which blocked enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly; and while a large meteorite collision has no extant historical records of its presence, so the arguer believes that the volcanic eruption is the only reason for the cooling. However, the argument which seems to be specific and convincing is full of serious fallacies.

Firstly, the arguer takes it for granted that the accounts found both in Asia and Europe can be conducted to the whole world, so the world is suffering a dimming of the sun and a cold temperature at that time too, which makes a mistake of hasty generalization and lead the reader to misunderstand a dimming of the sun, or a dust separating the sun from the earth is the primary reason for the cool temperature.

Secondly, the arguer mentions in the argument that a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth is the only two reasons leading to the blocking of sunlight by creating a large dust cloud. Is it too ridiculous? There are other alternatives for the blocking of the sunlight, for instance, the pollution air which is produced by human beings can lead to the result of blocking sunlight. So from this point of view, the argument is lack of credibility for expelling other explanations.  

Last but not least, that a sudden bright flash of light has not found in the history does not mean there is no meteorite collision happened at that time. In addition, the arguer mentioned that large meteorite collision would probably create a flash; it is not a definite phenomenon. So without the records of the flash, it is still possible that the meteorite collision happened, accounting for turning the earth to be cooler.

Simply put, the argument is based on many assumptions, which lead no credibility to its conclusion. To make it acceptable, the arguer should demonstrate the researches about how the volcanic eruption changed the temperature of the world, rather than other factors. Besides that, the arguer apply serious attitude to the study of science, to get an objective conclusion from the facts, not from lots of assumptions.

bbgUID: 2373668

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To support his conclusion, he points out that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth could result to a large dust cloud which blocked enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly; and while a large meteorite collision has no extant historical records of its presence, so the arguer believes that the volcanic eruption is the only reason for the cooling. However, the argument which seems to be specific and convincing is full of serious fallacies.

Firstly, the arguer takes it for granted that the accounts found both in Asia and Europe can be conducted to the whole world, so the world is suffering a dimming of the sun and a cold temperature at that time too, which makes a mistake of hasty generalization and lead the reader to misunderstand a dimming of the sun, or a dust separating the sun from the earth is the primary reason for the cool temperature.(研究结果怎么得来的，王家村职业技术学院的研究结果能信么？就算是哈佛教授说的，这种record真是么，是不是fabricate; 就算是真的代表什么么，地区的情况代表全球整体么；而且这个纪录跟研究结果时处于相同时间么？一个是BC一个是AD怎么办？扯淡)

Secondly, the arguer mentions in the argument that a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth is the only two reasons leading to the blocking of sunlight by creating a large dust cloud. Is it too ridiculous? There are other alternatives for the blocking of the sunlight, for instance, the pollution air which is produced by human beings can lead to the result of blocking sunlight. So from this point of view, the argument is lack of credibility for expelling other explanations.  （既然有两种，另外一种也有可能性；没有证据不是；就算发生这类县现象，其他原因也有可能导致降温，外星人来了吧）

Last but not least, that a sudden bright flash of light has not found in the history does not mean there is no meteorite collision happened at that time. In addition, the arguer mentioned that large meteorite collision would probably create a flash; it is not a definite phenomenon. So without the records of the flash, it is still possible that the meteorite collision happened, accounting for turning the earth to be cooler. （没有记录怎么了，是不是遗失了；或者有记录只是目前还没发现，就算发现了也不能说明什么；那个年代会不会有外星人导致降温）

Simply put, the argument is based on many assumptions, which lead no credibility to its conclusion. To make it acceptable, the arguer should demonstrate the researches about how the volcanic eruption changed the temperature of the world, rather than other factors. Besides that, the arguer apply serious attitude to the study of science, to get an objective conclusion from the facts, not from lots of assumptions

拍啊拍啊拍, argument的speaker诌是欠抽...