argument50 必回拍 没人改 写在这有什么意义？不解。。。

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

1、论证前提不成立。一定要是在地球大致形成后，有彗星撞击过地球。文中没有给出何时彗星撞击过地球。
2、论证前提不成立。假设上一前提成立，没有数据证明，此时的撞击产生的热量足够融化彗星，因为文中给出了一个迷惑，地球已经冷却而且坚硬的表面。
3、结论不成立。即使上两个前提成立，也不能说地球上的水一定全部来自彗星与地球的撞击。他可能形成一部分，但也可能是其他同样带有水和气的岩石撞击产生了另一部分。或者是其他的途径产生。
论断：作者的论证过于武断，缺乏科学性，可信性。在没有做出严密的科学分析和试验的情况下给出的论断，是对科学不负责任的态度。
11:40-----12:30
In the draft, the author gives us a vague description of the formation of the earth, and then come to a conclusion that the water in earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To support the assertion, the author cites many hypotheses: (1) earth was being formed out of the heat from collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet. (2)any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space.(3)when the earth reach its current size, it can hold gases and water vapor around it.(4)the collision of comets, largely ice made up of, can make the comets entirely molten and formed the water in earth. Close scrutiny of those hypotheses, however, reveals many problems between them and eventually lend no credible support to the assertion.

The two assumptions of the argument are not stand up. The first assumption to support the argument is that after the earth reached its current size, there should be a collision of the comet. Because, from the draft, the author told us that unless the earth reached its current size, it cannot hold gases and water vapor around it, let alone hold water into oceans. There is no evidence and statistics to indicate the assumption is true. Without this basically assumptions establish, all the argument followed are null and useless.

Another assumption that is not found is that the heat from the collision of comets after the earth come to the right size can make the comets entirely molten and formed the water in earth. Suppose there was a comet collides to the earth, no evidence can prove that after thousands of year’s evolution the collision of the space rocks can emit heat as large as past that melt the comet. It is the author himself who confused us by the sentence "the cooled and solidified surface of earth".

The conclusion is also not credible. Even if the two assumptions are believable, it is also too arbitrary to assert that the water in earth's oceans must have originated from comets. Maybe some parts of the water in earth stem from comets; it also perhaps other parts are from other rocks which are also contains water present. Or perhaps some parts are from other form of channel. Without ruling out of other possibilities for forming the water in the earth' oceans, the author cannot convince me on the draft.

To sum up, the draft manuscript submitted to a publisher is quite incredible, too arbitrary, and lacking scientific nature. Given out conclusions before strict scientific analysis’s and experiments is a attitude of lacking responsibility of science.

[ Last edited by mvpzhuang on 2005-7-21 at 15:11 ]

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

自己来顶一下
怎么就没人改。。。。。
可怜的我

yeshunUID: 2117489

开头太长了吧，相反，中间的论证就短多了！
偶是菜鸟，只能说这么多了！hehe

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

In the draft, the author gives us a vague description of the formation of the earth, and then come to a conclusion that the water in earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To support the assertion, the author cites many hypotheses，like the collision of comets, largely ice made up of, can make the comets entirely molten and formed the water in earth. Close scrutiny of those hypotheses, however, reveals many problems between them and eventually lend no credible support to the assertion.
这样改是不是 好点？

jamesprcUID: 2119791

In the draft, the author gives us a vague description of the formation of the earth, and then come to a conclusion that the water in earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To support the assertion, the author cites many hypotheses: (1) earth was being formed out of the heat from collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet.(...earth was being formed out of collisons，是由碰撞产生的，而不是由热产生的。把碰撞产生热加到下一条中较好吧）(2)any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space.(3)when the earth reach its current size, it can hold gases and water vapor around it.(4)the collision of comets, largely ice made up of, can make the comets entirely molten and formed the water in earth. Close scrutiny of those hypotheses, however, reveals many problems between them and eventually lend no credible support to the assertion.

The two assumptions of the argument are not stand up（没见过，你在权威材料中见过就行）. The first assumption to support the argument is that after the earth reached its current size, there should be a collision of the comet. Because, from the draft, the author told us that unless the earth reached its current size, it cannot hold gases and water vapor around it, let alone hold water into oceans. There is no evidence and statistics to indicate the assumption is true. Without this basically assumptions（assumption) establish（established), all the argument followed are null and useless.

Another assumption that is not found is that the heat from the collision of comets after the earth come to the right size can make the comets entirely molten and formed the water in earth. Suppose there was a comet collides to the earth, no evidence can prove that after thousands of year’s evolution the collision of the space rocks can emit heat as large as past that melt the comet. It is the author himself who confused us by the sentence "the cooled and solidified surface of earth".(个人认为这一点有些问题）

The conclusion is also not credible. Even if the two assumptions are believable, it is also too arbitrary to assert that the water in earth's oceans must have originated from comets. Maybe some parts of the water in earth stem from comets; it also perhaps other parts are from other rocks which are also contains water present.（这里先得驳倒第二条假设） Or perhaps some parts are from other form of channel.（不指出具体来源论证不算深入，其他可能性） Without ruling out of other possibilities for forming the water in the earth' oceans, the author cannot convince me on the draft.

To sum up, the draft manuscript submitted to a publisher is quite incredible, too arbitrary, and lacking scientific nature. Given out conclusions before strict scientific analysis’s and experiments is a attitude of lacking responsibility of science.

个人认为，第二点的论正还得在改进一些，原文并没有指出彗星融化是由于地球温度高。可以批彗星一定会融化进入大气层，指出可以以固态存在于地球表面。
第三点的论证它因法不够深入，我想了一个其它可能性，水可能是地球形成后漫长时间里的固态化学反应的产物，不知这条行不行。还有，语法错误还得注意。

这篇文章好难啊，感觉逻辑错误很难找而且不好批，请大家帮忙提提啊。

我的也帮我看看，谢了
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

[ Last edited by jamesprc on 2005-7-25 at 09:38 ]

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

因为没有专业知识，论证显得很肤浅。。。关于你说的固态化学反应的，我不太清楚，等我问问看。