Argument47

@amy@UID：209096

题目
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.


翻译：研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。  

**********************************************************
提纲
（1）不能假设温度下降要么是火山喷发要么是小行星撞击造成的，因为即使火山爆发和行星撞击产生尘埃，也是影响局部的，不会遮挡住整个地球，所以还有很多可能的原因。比如科学研究已经发现太阳黑子增多会造成温度下降，地心张角变小也会造成温度下降，还能引发严重的自然灾害。
（2）没有记录提到强闪光并不代表真的没有发生，有可能记录被遗失了，或者当时撞击发生在没有人烟的地方，人们并不知道发生了什么。
（3）没有证据说巨大的隆隆声是火山爆发发出的，也有可能是地震或者山体坍塌等等。
  
**********************************************************
字数：451 words
时间：45分钟
**********************************************************
正文
In this argument, the arguer asserts that the phenomenon that Earth suddenly significantly cooler in the mix-sixth century is most possibly caused by a volcanic eruption. His assertion depends on a precondition that global temperatures decline greatly is resulted either by a huge volcanic eruption or by a large meteorite colliding with Earth. The arguer exclude the possibility of meteorite collision by the fact that no extant historical records of a sudden bright flash of light exists and the records that mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. His reasoning seems logical, but after careful study, we can find several flaws as follows.

First of all, there is no evidence to support his precondition, that is, he should not assume that huge volcanic eruption and meteorite collision are the only possible of global temperatures decline. In fact, whether the two facets are the possible reason for the phenomenon is still open to doubt because even if a large dust cloud can be created by the two facets, the range is limited and hard to cause Earth cooler dramatically. Moreover, there are many likely reasons for the temperature decline. For example, after careful studies and observations, scientists have found that the increase of Sun maculae can result in the temperature decline. Similarly, when Sun and the eight planets except Earth round at the same side of Earth, they form a sector. When the case takes place at winter and the angle of the sector is smaller than 70 degree, Earth will become cooler. If the angle of the sector is small than 45 degree, in other words, Sun and the other eight planets are even in a line, Earth will be very cool and natural disasters will occur. Consequently, the precondition the arguer depends is unwarranted.

Secondly, the arguer is cursory to conclude that the temperature decline is not caused by meteorite collision just by the absence of records. It is possible that the relative records were missed or destroyed what often happened in history. It is also possible that meteorite collision occurred at boondocks than nobody knew what happened. Thus the arguer's reasoning is unacceptable.

Thirdly, the arguer just depends on the loud boom to conclude that there was a volcanic eruption. His conclusion is greatly absurd because it is very likely that some other things made the loud boom, such as earthquakes or collapse of mountains.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion is not convincing because he depends on a baseless assumption and makes wrong reasoning. To make his conclusion acceptable, he has to take the facets discussed above into account, that is, to consider all possible reasons for temperature decline and give strong evidence.

kito9695UID：209685

正文
In this argument, the arguer asserts that the phenomenon that Earth suddenly significantly coolerbecome cooler要好一点吧 in the mix-sixth century is most possibly caused by a volcanic eruption. His assertion depends on a precondition没用过的词，学习 that global temperatures decline greatly is resulted either byby? result from吧 a huge volcanic eruption or by同前面 a large meteorite colliding with Earth. The arguer excludes the possibility of meteorite collision by the fact that no extant historical records of a sudden bright flash of light exists and the records that mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. His reasoning seems logical, but after careful study, we can find several flaws as follows.开头叙述得很好，我总是把原文直接copy着堆上去，说不清楚

First of all, there is no evidence to support his precondition, that is, he should notshould这个词感觉很主观，可以换个句式 assume that huge volcanic eruption and meteorite collision are the only possible+reason或者cause of global temperatures decline. In fact, whether the two facets are the possible reason for the phenomenon is still open to doubt because even if a large dust cloud can be created by the two facets, the range is limited and hard to cause Earth cooler dramatically这个副词起修饰作用，前面应加个表示变化的动词. Moreover, there are many likely reasons for the temperature decline. For example, after careful studies and observations, scientists have found that the increase of Sun maculae cancould result in the temperature decline. Similarly, when Sun and the eight planets except Earth round at the same side of Earth, they form a sector. When前面刚用了when，换个句式更好一些 the case takes place at winter and the angle of the sector is smaller than 70 degree, Earth will become cooler. If the angle of the sector is small than 45 degree, in other words, Sun and the other eight planets are even in a line, Earth will be very cool and natural disasters will occur.感觉这个原因叙述得太详细太专业，没有必要，简单的概括就可以了 Consequently, the precondition the arguer depends is unwarranted.

Secondly, the arguer is cursory学习 to conclude that the temperature decline is not caused by meteorite collision just by the absence of records. It is possible that the relative records were missed or destroyed what often happened in history. It is also possible that meteorite collision occurred at boondocks学习 than nobody knew what hadhappened. Thus the arguer's reasoning is unacceptable.

Thirdly, the arguer just depends on the loud boom to conclude that there was a volcanic eruption. His conclusion is greatly absurd because it is very likely that some other things made the loud boom, such as earthquakes or collapse of mountains.与其他几段比起来，这段有点薄弱，可以再扩充一下；另外，作为批驳漏洞的最后一段，我觉得可以加上last but not least，单说thirdly感觉上只有三点错误，似乎有点少

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion is not convincing because he depends on a baseless assumption and makes wrong reasoning. To make his conclusion acceptable, he has to take the facets discussed above into account, that is用在这很恰当，学习ing, to consider all possible reasons for temperature decline and give strong evidence.

改完~明天可以稍微轻松一下，下午去运动运动~

@amy@UID：209096

提纲
（1）不能假设温度下降要么是火山喷发要么是小行星撞击造成的，因为即使火山爆发和行星撞击产生尘埃，也是影响局部的，不会遮挡住整个地球，所以还有很多可能的原因。比如科学研究已经发现太阳黑子增多会造成温度下降，地心张角变小也会造成温度下降，还能引发严重的自然灾害。
（2）没有记录提到强闪光并不代表真的没有发生，有可能记录被遗失了，或者当时撞击发生在没有人烟的地方，人们并不知道发生了什么。
（3）没有证据说巨大的隆隆声是火山爆发发出的，也有可能是地震或者山体坍塌等等。即使真的是火山爆发发出的，也没有证据说明火山爆发是在温度下降之前。
  
**********************************************************
正文
In this argument, the arguer asserts that the phenomenon that Earth suddenly significantly became cooler in the mix-sixth century is most possibly caused by a volcanic eruption. His assertion depends on a precondition that global temperatures decline greatly is resulted either from a huge volcanic eruption or from a large meteorite colliding with Earth. The arguer excludes the possibility of meteorite collision by the fact that no extant historical records of a sudden bright flash of light exists and the records that mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. His reasoning seems logical, but after careful study, we can find several flaws as follows.

First of all, there is no evidence to support his precondition, that is, he fails to assume that huge volcanic eruption and meteorite collision are the only possible of global temperatures decline. In fact, whether the two facets are the possible reason for the phenomenon is still open to doubt because even if a large dust cloud can be created by the two facets, the range is limited and hard to cause Earth become cooler dramatically. Moreover, there are many likely reasons for the temperature decline. For example, after careful studies and observations, scientists have found that the increase of Sun maculae could result in the temperature decline. Similarly, when Sun and the eight planets except Earth round at the same side of Earth, they form a sector. If the case takes place at winter and the angle of the sector is smaller than 70 degree, Earth will become cooler. If the angle of the sector is small than 45 degree, in other words, Sun and the other eight planets are even in a line, Earth will be very cool and natural disasters will occur. Consequently, the precondition the arguer depends is unwarranted.

Secondly, the arguer is cursory to conclude that the temperature decline is not caused by meteorite collision just by the absence of records. It is possible that the relative records were missed or destroyed what often happened in history. It is also possible that meteorite collision occurred at boondocks than nobody knew what had happened. Thus the arguer's reasoning is unacceptable.

Last but not least, the arguer just depends on the loud boom to conclude that there was a volcanic eruption. His conclusion is greatly absurd because it is very likely that some other things made the loud boom, such as earthquakes or collapse of mountains. Even if the loud boom was made by volcanic eruption, the arguer does not prove that the loud boom occurred before temperature decline. If the loud boom occurred after temperature decline, it still cannot be a evidence.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion is not convincing because he depends on a baseless assumption and makes wrong reasoning. To make his conclusion acceptable, he has to take the facets discussed above into account, that is, to consider all possible reasons for temperature decline and give strong evidence.