2月3日作业 A 47

doudoumi07UID: 2755418

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: 440          TIME: 01:30:10          DATE: 2010/2/3 17:17:16
    Grounding on the argument, the speaker supposing that either a large  meteorite collision or a huge volcanic eruption caused earth became suddenly cooler in the mid-six century , and then synthesizing the hypothesize and another two facts that there are no extant historical records of the time refer such a bright flash of light and several surviving historical records reveal a loud sound in that time, the author accordingly conclude that the reason caused earth became suddenly cooler is that probably a huge volcanic eruption. Although the speaker's reasoning sound like appealing, many apparent logical fallacies weaken the assumptions and render it unpersuasive.
    First of all, the speaker commits the fallacy of an either-or thinking. Reasons other than either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision with earth could also have caused the cooling in the mid-six century. Many other reasons could cause the same effect , it is entirely possible that the activities of sun became weakness so that people in earth considered a dimming of sun, or perhaps the decreasing rate of carbon dioxide in earth impair the Greenhouse effect result in the cooling of earth. Without considering other possibilities lead the cooling of earth in six-century, the speaker can not hasty to consider the reason why earth became cooler is either a large meteorite collision with earth or a huge volcanic eruption.
    Secondly, the mere fact that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright of light caused by meteorite collision is not sufficient to substantiate the assumption that cooling was not caused by a large meteorite collision. It is entirely possible that there was a large meteorite collision but there was no records to record it. Lacking more evidence to demonstrate no meteorite collision with earth, the assumption that cooling not caused by meteorite collision just because the fact that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright of light.
    Thirdly, the loud bloom cited in the surviving Asian historical records is lend  little support to the assertion that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. A loud bloom is not a necessarily characteristics of a volcanic eruption, some other natural disasters like cataclysm , tsunamis also could cause a loud sound. To convince me a loud bloom is caused by a volcanic eruption , I need more information about the surviving Asian historical records.
    In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To support this conclusion , the speaker should give other possible explanations for the reasons caused earth suddenly became cooler, and more information about the realness of the surviving Asian historical records.

Lisa-yuanUID: 2748489

Grounding on the argument, the speaker supposing that either a large  meteorite collision or a huge volcanic eruption caused earth became suddenly cooler in the mid-six century , and then synthesizing the hypothesize and another two facts that there are no extant historical records of the time refer such a bright flash of light (用meteoric collision更贴切)and several surviving historical records reveal a loud sound in that time, the author accordingly conclude that the reason caused earth became suddenly cooler is that probably a huge volcanic eruption. Although the speaker's reasoning sound like appealing, many apparent logical fallacies weaken the assumptions and render it unpersuasive.

    First of all, the speaker commits the fallacy of an either-or thinking. Reasons other than either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite collision with earth could also have caused the cooling in the mid-six century. Many other reasons could cause the same effect; it is entirely possible that the activities of sun became weakness so that people in earth considered a dimming of sun, or perhaps the decreasing rate of carbon dioxide in earth impair the Greenhouse
（按理说6世纪的时候还没有greenhouse的概念吧，greenhouse应该是工业革命后才提出来的）effect result in the cooling of earth. Without considering other possibilities lead the cooling of earth in six-century, the speaker can not hasty to consider the reason why earth became cooler is either a large meteorite collision with earth or a huge volcanic eruption.

    Secondly, the mere fact that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright of light caused by meteorite collision is not sufficient to substantiate the assumption that cooling was not caused by a large meteorite collision. It is entirely possible that there was a large meteorite collision but there was no records to record it. Lacking more evidence to demonstrate no meteorite collision with earth, the assumption that cooling not caused by meteorite collision just because the fact that no extant historical records of the time mention a sudden bright of light.（ 首先meteorite collision 是否会引起bight light还是一个猜测， argument里面有用probable这个词，但是我们也不能for sure。）

    Thirdly, the loud bloom cited in the surviving Asian historical records is lend  little support to the assertion that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption. A loud bloom is not a necessarily characteristics of a volcanic eruption, some other natural disasters like cataclysm , tsunamis also could cause a loud sound. To convince me a loud bloom is caused by a volcanic eruption , I need more information about the surviving Asian historical records.（尽量少用第一人称）

    In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To support this conclusion , the speaker should give other possible explanations for the reasons caused earth suddenly became cooler, and more information about the realness of the surviving Asian historical records.