argument47 G89交8月2日作业

PEGGYUID: 2102778

Argument 47
提纲：1。没证据表明太阳变暗和极度的寒冷有因果关系，只是同时一起发生的两个现象
2．即使是由于太阳变暗，也不能排除大型小行星撞击地球的可能性，首先小行星撞击的强光是否全球都能看到，若有人看到了，那些人当时有没有文字记录的能力。其次，有可能文字记录在另一次灾难中被销毁了。
3．证明是火山喷发的证据不充分。首先，作者假设巨大的隆隆声是火山喷发造成的，却没有证据表明这一点；其次，没有信息表明气温下降是伴随着隆隆声而来的。

In this argument, the author concludes that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this, the author cites some accounts that mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. To reach the conclusion, the author points out that no extant historical records of the time mention a flash, which is probably caused by a large meteorite collision and some surviving Asian historical record of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. However, close scrutiny of these evidence reveal that they lends little support for the conclusion.

First, the author assume too hastily that a large dust cloud throughout Earth’s atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures. The dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures are just two phenomenon happened at the same time. A direct correlation between dimming of sun and cooling does not necessarily prove  the former  causes the latter It’s equally possible that the fluctuation of current influence the temperature of earth, and the dimming of the sun is just a coincidence. Without ruling out the alternative to explain the decline of temperature, the author’s conclusion is dubious.

Secondly, even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumption, the assumption that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption is still unjustified. The problem is that the evidence provided to exclude the possibility of meteorite collision is insufficient. We don’t know whether everywhere on earth can see the flash at that time, and even if somebody saw it ,they might be not able to record it on the case they don’t have any language. It’s also possible that the records of a flash was destroyed in a disaster after that. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the author’s conclusion .

Thirdly, the assumption that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption based on record of a loud boom is indefensible. There’s no evidence to prove the boom is caused by a volcanic eruption, it’s equally possible a super storm or a large meteorite collision. What’s more, the author fails to provide evidence to show that the boom was before the cooling, it’s possible that the boom is after the cooling so it’s can be the cause of cooling. The article fails to account for the alternative explanation for the boom and no information about the sequence of boom and cooling, thus the author can’t make any sound conclusion that the cooling was caused by a volcanic.

In sum, the article is unpersuasive as it stands. To convince me that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption , the author must provide more convincing evidence that the boom was the sound of volcanic eruption and it’s before the cooling. To better assess the article, it’s useful to know the climate , human culture of that time and what’s happened after the cooling.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-3 at 09:30 ]

meimei0212UID: 2112263

Argument 47
提纲：1。没证据表明太阳变暗和极度的寒冷有因果关系，只是同时一起发生的两个现象
2．即使是由于太阳变暗，也不能排除大型小行星撞击地球的可能性，首先小行星撞击的强光是否全球都能看到，若有人看到了，那些人当时有没有文字记录的能力。其次，有可能文字记录在另一次灾难中被销毁了。
3．证明是火山喷发的证据不充分。首先，作者假设巨大的隆隆声是火山喷发造成的，却没有证据表明这一点；其次，没有信息表明气温下降是伴随着隆隆声而来的。

In this argument, the author concludes that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To support this, the author cites some accounts that mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. To reach the conclusion, the author points out that no extant historical records of the time mention aany是不是好些啊？ flash, which is probably caused by a large meteorite collision and some surviving Asian historical records of the time mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. However, close scrutiny of these evidence reveals that they lendslend little support for the conclusion.我觉得你这段写的有点长，其实不用把那么多的论据都列出来的，大略写几个就好了吧

First, the author assume总是忘打s啊，粗心了吧 tooso that好一点吧 hastily that a large dust cloud throughout the Earth’s atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures. The dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures are just two phenomenon happened at the same time. A direct correlation between dimming of sun and cooling does not necessarily prove  the former  causes the latter It’s equally possible名词吧 that the fluctuation of current influence the temperature of earth, and the dimming of the sun is just a coincidence.这句话有点晦涩，看不大懂的：（ Without ruling out the alternative to explain the decline of temperature, the author’s conclusion is dubious.

Secondly, even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumption, the assumption that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption is still unjustified.喜欢这种让步的论证 The problem is that the evidence provided to exclude the possibility of meteorite collision is insufficient. We don’t know whether everywhere用all the area合适些吧 on the earth can see the flash at that time, and even if somebody saw it ,they might be not able to觉得这两个能愿动词有重复 record it on the case有这个用法吗？ they don’t时态时态 have any language. It’s also possible that the records of a flash was复数复数 destroyed in a disaster after that. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the author’s conclusion .特别喜欢你在段尾的结论，每句都不一样

Thirdly, the assumption that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption based on record of a loud boom is indefensible. There’s正式文体中不要用缩写 no evidence to prove the boom is caused by a volcanic eruption, it’s equally possible a super storm or a large meteorite collision. What’s more, the author fails to provide evidence to show that the boom was before the cooling, it’s possible that the boom is after the cooling so it’s can be the cause of cooling.是不是可以考虑用别的句子，比如maybe之类增加灵活性 The article fails to account for the alternative explanation for the boom and no information about the sequence of boom and cooling, thus the author can’t make any sound conclusion that the cooling was caused by a volcanic名词.

In sum, the article is unpersuasive as it stands言语有点过激吧. To convince me that the cooling was caused by a volcanic eruption , the author must provide more convincing evidence that the boom was the sound of volcanic eruption and it’s before the cooling. To better assess the article, it’s useful to know the climate , human culture of that time and what’s happened after the cooling
觉得楼主看了很多范文，论证形式很娴熟，但是感觉语言有点单调。比我写得好多了哇哇

PEGGYUID: 2102778

我觉得你这段写的有点长，其实不用把那么多的论据都列出来的，大略写几个就好了吧

我也觉得了，不过怕抓不到重点的论据，所以就偷懒把题目的抄了下来:)

First, the author assume总是忘打s啊，粗心了吧 tooso that好一点吧 hastily that a large dust cloud throughout the Earth’s atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures

呵呵，不好意思了:$
这里too hastily 修饰assume，不是引导结果。放在那里是不是很容易让人误会？

It’s equally possible名词吧 that the fluctuation of current influence the temperature of earth, and the dimming of the sun is just a coincidence.这句话有点晦涩，看不大懂的：（

it's possible that 的句型
我是想说还有可能是气流导致气温下降，我试试这样写：It is equally possible that the cooling was due to the current fluctuation rather than dimming of the sun, which is just a coincidence.
这样是不是要好一些？

PEGGYUID: 2102778

We don’t know whether everywhere用all the area合适些吧 on the earth can see the flash at that time, and even if somebody saw it ,they might be not able to觉得这两个能愿动词有重复 record it on the case有这个用法吗？ they don’t时态时态 have any language.

这句话这样改：
we donnot know whether all the area on the earth can see the flash at that time, and even if somebody saw it, they might not master any language to record it.

论证形式很娴熟，但是感觉语言有点单调。

点评得一针见血:victory:
上课老师主要讲论证模式，所以语言上面确实很不扎实
谢谢meimei 0212的修改，我会更加努力！:handshake