Aero小组第八次作业 Argument47

victkidUID: 2326283

This article concludes that the cooling weather in the mid-sixth century was probably by a volcanic eruption but the meteorite collision. To justify this conclusion the author notes that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. The author also cites that a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.

First, no extant historical records mention a sudden bright flash does not necessarily indicate that such flash not happened. Perhaps due to few historical records survive from that time, some evidences was damaged or uncovered yet, or perhaps the bright flash happened in a time that no one noticed or in somewhere that no one could see.

Secondly, even if the bright flash which meteorite collision would probable create didn’t appear, the author lack the evidence to prove that sudden bright flash is absolutely combine with meteorite colliding. Perhaps only 10% of such flash could happen after the meteorite collision. If so, the author cannot exclude the possibility that the cooling weather in mid-sixth century is led by meteorite collision.

Thirdly, the records which mention a loud boom is little indication that this boom is due to volcanic eruption. The author must list some typical traits to prove that loud boom was merely created by volcanic eruption.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must show more evidence to prove that the meteorite collision not happened indeed, or provide better evidence that the volcanic eruption happened at that time.

lovemxfUID: 2335206

This article concludes that the cooling weather in the mid-sixth century was probably by a volcanic eruption but the meteorite collision. To justify this conclusion the author notes that some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. The author also cites that a large meteorite collision would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.First, no extant historical records mention a sudden bright flash does not necessarily indicate that such flash not happened. Perhaps due to few historical records survive from that time, some evidences was damaged or uncovered yet, or perhaps the bright flash happened in a time that no one noticed or in somewhere that no one could see.不错简单精炼Secondly, even if the bright flash which meteorite collision would probable create didn’t do not appear, the author lack the evidence to prove that sudden bright flash is absolutely combine with meteorite colliding. Perhaps only 10% of such flash could happen after the meteorite collision. If so, the author cannot exclude the possibility that the cooling weather in mid-sixth century is led by meteorite collision.不知道你这段话的意思是什么要反驳什么？有点跑题了Thirdly, the records which mention a loud boom is little indication that this boom is due to volcanic eruption. The author must list some typical traits to prove that loud boom was merely created by volcanic eruption.这段话是和重点最好重点论证一下。

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must show more evidence to prove that the meteorite collision not happened indeed, or provide better evidence that the volcanic eruption happened at that time.

还有一个错误你没有看出来，就是关于天气寒冷只说了两个观点，应该还有其他的可能性，所以作者要把其他可能性都排除才可以。另外开头太长了，中间太短了，有点头重脚轻。
希望尽快回拍：
argument：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-793247-1-1.html
issue：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-793327-1-1.html