argument 147 决战830拍砖组 22日作业 同主题高频狂练,请兄弟们狂拍

caogenmanchiUID: 2127136

Argument47  第9篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：39分59秒     372 words

--------题目--------
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------
In the argument, the arguer claims that the cooling in the mid-sixteen century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites some records at that time and analyzes the probability of the eruption of huge volcanic eruption or large meteorite. At first glance, it is somewhat convincing, but after close examination, I believe that the argument is undermined by the following fallacies.

First of all, the arguer fails to take into account other possible causes of the cooling. The arguer find that there were a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures in the mid-sixteen century and therefore draw the conclusion that a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere leaded to the cooling at that time. It is entirely possible that the cooling result from other causes such as the change of the sun light. The change of the sun light itself could lead to the concurrence of the two phenomena above. Furthermore, it is also possible that the large dust cloud mention above resulted from other causes rather than a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth.

Secondly, the argument is weakened by the fact that the arguer somewhat arbitrarily excludes the occurrence of a large meteorite collision. Suppose the meteorite collision happened in a place of South America, perhaps the residents in that place would not record the phenomenon. If they indeed record it, it is entirely possible that the records were destroyed in the following wars between the residents in South America and the invaders from Europe. So we can not rule out the occurrence of the meteorite collision.

Last but not least, the causal relation between the loud boom mentioned above and the volcanic eruption is also not established.  As I know, loud booms recorded in human history may be uncountable. For example, a strong earthquake also makes a loud boom. So if we want to identify the causal relation between the loud boom mentioned above and the volcanic eruption, we must look for other relevant evidences.

In summary, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. The arguer should take into account the possibilities mentioned above before a conclusion on the cause of the cooling is reached.