argument50 【米国有米】寒假第四天1.30

holdingUID: 2285054

TOPIC: ARGUMENT50 - From a draft textbook manuscript submitted to a publisher.

"As Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks, the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface. Any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space. As the planet approached its current size, however, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere. Because comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, a comet striking Earth then would have vaporized. The resulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere, eventually falling as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth. Therefore, the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets."

WORDS: 305          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-30

In the argument, the author claims that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the principle that after the collision of space rocks, the water could be evaporated because of the high energy and then be approached by stronger and stronger gravitation of the Earth. It seems that the argument is sound and persuasive, however, after the careful research on it, I find it not convincing as a result of many logical flaws.

Firstly, the arguer makes a logical mistake of wrong analogy. As we know, every thing in the world is different from another one, so even if they are in the same situation, there will be various processes because of the different characters they have. So in the argument, the arguer has no evidence to prove that the collision of both space rocks and comets can lead to a same result. For example, while the collision of space rocks can product amount of heat, the collision of comets will only form little energy which can not evaporate much water. Hence, the conclusion that the result of the collision by both space rocks and comets are same is not exactly proved.

Besides, the arguer fails to prove that the ice on comets will evaporate after the collision between the Earth and comets. It is possible that the ice made up of frozen water and gases is so solid that it can not be evaporated by the heat from those collisions. In this case, the water vapors which retained in the atmosphere and eventually fell as rain into the oceans are not from comets but from some other planets and in space.

What's more, the arguer ignores that there would be some other origins of the water vapor in the space after the collision, besides the evaporated water from the ice made up of frozen water and gases. It is possible that there are some water on other planets nearby is evaporated by the great heat and energy release from the collision of the Earth and comets. So when the planet approached its current size, the vapor water hold by the Earth to form atmosphere is conclude both the water evaporated form the comets ice and the water form some other planets.

To sum up, the argument is not persuaded because of some logical mistakes. To make the argument convincing, the arguer should gain more evidence of the familiarity of the collisions by space rocks and by comets and the ice on comets can be gasified by the heat of the collision. Meanwhile, the author should also prove that there are no other origins of water vapor.

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

ARGUMENT50 - From a draft textbookmanuscript submitted to a publisher.
"As Earth was being formed out of thecollision of space rocks, the heat from those collisions and from theincreasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten,even the surface. Any water present would have evaporated and gone off intospace. As the planet approached its current size, however, its gravitationbecame strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere.Because comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, a cometstriking Earth then would have vaporized. The resulting water vapor would havebeen retained in the atmosphere, eventually falling as rain on the cooled andsolidified surface of Earth. Therefore, the water inEarth's oceans must have originated from comets."
WORDS: 445         TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-30
   

In the argument, the author claims that thewater in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To support thisconclusion, the arguer cites the principle that after the collision of spacerocks, the water could be evaporated because of the high energy and then beapproached by stronger and stronger [increasing] gravitation of the Earth.[我觉得你要攻击的是彗星，你应该把它例出来啊] It seems that theargument is sound and persuasive, however, after the careful research on it, Ifind it not convincing as a result of many logical flaws.
   

Firstly, the arguer makes a logical mistakeof wrong analogy. As we know, every thing in the world is different fromanother one, so even if they are in the same situation, there will be variousprocesses because of the different characters they have. So in the argument,the arguer has no evidence to prove that the collision of both space rocks andcomets can lead to a same result.[作者没有说他们有同样的结果啊] For example, while the collisionof space rocks can product amount of heat, thecollision of comets will only form little energy which can not evaporate muchwater.[即使水没有蒸发，它还是留在地球上了不是？所以你攻击这一点可以，但是攻击这点并不能动摇作者的结论] Hence, the conclusion that the result of the collision byboth space rocks and comets are same is not exactly proved. [看上面题目中蓝色的才是结论]
   

Besides, the arguerfails to prove that the ice on comets will evaporate after the collisionbetween the Earth and comets.[这个怎么和上面说的一样？] It is possible that the ice madeup of frozen water and gases is so solid that it can not be evaporated by theheat from those collisions. In this case, the water vapors which retained inthe atmosphere and eventually fell as rain into the oceans are not from cometsbut from some other planets and in space.
[即使水没有蒸发，它还是留在地球上了不是？所以你攻击这一点可以，但是攻击这点并不能动摇作者的结论]
      

What's more, the arguer ignores that therewould be some other origins of the water vapor in the space after thecollision, besides the evaporated water from the ice[comet上的冰] made upof frozen water and gases. It is possible that thereare some water on other planets nearby is evaporated by the great heat andenergy release from the collision of the Earth and comets.[这扯到哪去啦啊？彗星和地球碰撞的热量导致地球附近的行星的水到地球上来，这合理吗？过于极端] So when the planetapproached its current size, the vapor water hold by the Earth to formatmosphere is conclude both the water evaporated form the comets ice and thewater form some other planets.[论证不够充分，而且举出的可能也不合理，缺乏与全文攻击主题的连接]
      

To sum up, the argument is not persuadedbecause of some logical mistakes.[过于概括，哪些逻辑方面的呢？] To make the argumentconvincing, the arguer should gain more evidence of the familiarity of thecollisions by space rocks and by comets and the ice on comets can be gasifiedby the heat of the collision. Meanwhile, the author should also prove thatthere are no other origins of water vapor.               

总结：前2论证段攻击的不对点，第三个论证段不充分不够有力。估计是题目解析有误。我之所以选这篇，因为这还算argument的10大难题，频率虽然底，但碰上了岂不是挂了。
MM记得好好审题，其实语言方面还不错呵呵~~加油吧