argument47 寄托4人组 8.22 作业

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

本文是“寄托4人组”今日的作业，已有组员会来修改。我们欢迎大家就文中的结构和内容进行讨论，但请其他G友优先照顾没有组队的同学。谢谢！

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.

------正文-----
By appealing to some historical records and deduction, the author in this argument tries to convince us that it is the volcanic eruption that caused the change of environment in the mid-sixth century. Although this argument bears some merits, yet a close scrutiny tells me that several critical flaws can be found in the argument.

To begin with, the author gives no detailed information about the time relation between cooling in the whether and the records of dimming of the sun. We only know vaguely that both of them are in the mid-sixth century. If the records were made after the cooling, then the dimming is not the reason of cold temperature at all, since reason must be prior to the result.  

Second, even granted that the record of dimming was before the cooling, it does not necessarily follow that there is a causal relationship between the dust and the cooling. Maybe other reasons account for the cold weather. For example, there might be abnormal activities of the sun, which gave less energy to the earth and thus the temperature fell. If this is the case, then the dust had nothing to do with the cooling.

Even accepted that it was the dust that caused the change of temperature, the author still makes a fallacy of false dilemma. There is no reason why we have to make an either-or choice between a volcanic eruption and a meteorite collision. It is highly possible that there was a huge fire which covered large amount of land at that time; or there might be a global storm which blew the sand into the sky. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot persuade us that only the two factors above are possible reasons.

Moreover, even granted that it is an either/or situation, the author fails to offer solid evidence to support that it must be the volcanic eruption. No record about the meteorite collision does not follow that it never happened. Maybe it happened in an area that no human beings lived, or it might happen at night and everybody was sleeping. Even if someone did wit the collision, still they might fail to left a record. Even if they did keep a record, yet it might be destroyed or still buried underground. Besides, the sound of a loud boom is not sufficient to prove it must be a volcanic eruption either. Equally possible is that it was an earthquake or something else. Thus, the author is too hasty to exclude the possibility of meteorite collision and in favor of volcanic eruption.

In sum, the argument is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more solid, the author would have to offer more evidence to prove that it is really the dust in the sky that caused the cold weather, the possibility of meteorite collisions can be excluded, and that there are sufficient evidences to prove a volcanic eruption is the real cause.

492 after polish

哥哥家有二师兄UID: 2124390

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.

------正文-----
By appealing to some historical records and deduction, the author in this argument tries to convince us that it is the volcanic eruption that caused the change of environment in the mid-sixth century. Although this argument bears some merits, yet a close scrutiny tells me that several critical flaws can be found in the argument.

To begin with, the author gives no detailed information about the time relation between cooling in the whether and the records of dimming of the sun. We only know vaguely that both of them are in the mid-sixth century. If the records were made after the cooling/ 这里记录什么时候做的并不紧要，最关键是records 说明了什么：if records tell that dimming happened after the cooling, then the dimming is not the reason of cold temperature at all, since reason must be prior to the result.  

Second, even granted that the record of dimming was before the cooling, it does not necessarily follow that there is a causal relationship between the dust and the cooling. Maybe other reasons account for the cold weather. For example, there might be abnormal activities of the sun, which gave less energy to the earth and thus the temperature fell. If this is the case, then the dust had nothing to do with the cooling.

Even accepted that it was the dust that caused the change of temperature, the author still makes a fallacy of false dilemma. There is no reason why we have to make an either-or choice between a volcanic eruption and a meteorite collision. It is highly possible that there was a huge fire which covered large amount of land at that time; or there might be a global storm which blew the sand into the sky. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot persuade us that only the two factors above arethe possible reasons.

Moreover, even granted that it is an either/or situation, the author fails to offer solid evidence to support that it must be the volcanic eruption. No record about/ of the meteorite collision does not follow that it never happened. Maybe it happened in an area that no human beings lived, or it might happen at night and everybody was sleeping. Even if someone did wit the collision, still they might fail to left/ leave a record. Even if they did keep a record, yet it might be destroyed or still buried underground. 很到位！Besides, the sound of a loud boom is not sufficient to prove it must be a volcanic eruption either. Equally possible is that it was an earthquake or something else.比起对流星的分析，这里略微少了些可以再说即使那声音是火山喷发，它喷发的规模到底有多大，范围有多广，有没有历史记录，可以证明它足以影响到全球温度等 Thus, the author is too hasty to exclude the possibility of meteorite collision and in favor of volcanic eruption.

In sum, the argument is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more solid, the author would have to offer more evidence to prove that it is really the dust in the sky that caused the cold weather,/; the possibility of meteorite collisions can be excluded/;, and that there are sufficient evidences to prove a volcanic eruption is the real cause.
作为一篇比较难的argu,你写的这么好很让人羡慕！

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

这篇是在bridge和前人提纲的基础上写的。你提的最后一点很牛！多谢。