argument47 [0806G-desperado小组]第七次作业by pmsf

流淌的月光UID: 2414493

47.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.
研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的
记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定
的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那
时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。

提纲
1充分必要条件，没有证据证明不说明没有发生。可能发生在无人区或者记录后来丢失。
2记录下来的声音是否是火山爆发的声音。是否是引起降温的那次爆发。
3只有两种可能性。

正文
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.
To substantiate the recommention, the arguer point out that no historical records of a flash which was created by a large meteorite collision was mentioned in historical records.The arguer also point out that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption was mentioned in some surviving Asian historical records.However, the argument suffers from several critial flaws and is therefore unpersuative.
On the one hand, the inference rests on the assupmtion that no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash that no large meteorite collision happened. Perhaps a meteorite collision happened in a place that no people there. Or perhaps the record was lost in the coming time.
On the other hand, the evidence involving a loud boom does not adequately show it would consistent with a volcanic eruption.We also do not know that it is the volcannic eruption which cause a the cooling in the mid-sixth century.
Lastly, the arguer ignores other possible factors that may also contribute to the cooling.
To sum up, the arguer relies on a series of dubious assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive.

wangyu0920UID: 199396

In this argument, the arguer recommends that the cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.
To substantiate the recommention, the arguer point out that no historical records of a flash which was created by a large meteorite collision was mentioned in historical records（这一句中两个historical records，好像有些重复）.The arguer also point out that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption was mentioned in some surviving Asian historical records.However, the argument suffers from several critial flaws and is therefore unpersuative.
On the one hand, the inference rests(relies?) on the assupmtion that no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash that no large meteorite collision happened. Perhaps a meteorite collision happened in a place that no people there. Or perhaps the record was lost in the coming time.
On the other hand, the evidence involving a loud boom does not adequately show it would consistent with a volcanic eruption.We also do not know that it is the volcannic eruption which cause a the cooling in the mid-sixth century.
Lastly, the arguer ignores other possible factors that may also contribute to the cooling.
To sum up, the arguer relies on a series of dubious assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive

总体感觉是第一段还比较全面的概括了arguer的观点，为后面找出其逻辑错误做好了铺垫。但是后面几段的论述都太过于简单了，字数好像也不太够，应该更加充实一些，是不是时间的问题呢？

[ 本帖最后由 wangyu0920 于 2007-12-17 08:54 编辑 ]