[a习作temp] Argument50 第2篇觉得自己对错误描述和攻击的语言好单调啊 [复制链接]

amanda1011
UID: 2106668

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 5
寄托币: 800
注册时间: 2005-6-5
精华: 1
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-18 17:46:42 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

------摘要------
作者：amanda1011    共用时间：29分5秒    362 words (修改后489 words)
从2005年6月18日16时11分到2005年6月18日16时40分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The conclusion of the argument is that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To support his/her view, the arguer describe the  forming process of the Earth's oceans. He declares that because comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, which would have vaporized and hold in the atmosphere by the Earth's gravitation when a comet stroke Earth, the resulting water can eventually fall as rain on the surface of Earth to form the oceans. However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws though it seems convincing at first glance.

First of all, the arguer claims that as the planet approached its current size, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere. But he/she provide no evidence to show us that whether the gravitation of the Earth became strong enough when the comet striking took place. Apparently, if the gravitation is too weak when striking happened, the planet was not able to hold the gases and water vapor coming from the comet striking and lost the water vapor in the outer space. In this case, lacking an explicit evidence about the time of striking, the conclusion would be undermined totally.

Secondly, even if the comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, we could not subjectively reach a conclusion that a comet striking Earth then would have it vaporized and the resulting water vapor would fall as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth. We haven't  seen any scientific support about whether the ice of the comet would be changed into water and vaporized into the atmosphere.If the temparature of Earth while striking happened was so cold that even the heat from the collision could not make the ice melten, there was no water vapor, let alone the rain falling on Earth. How can we get the conclusion that the water falling as rain form the Earth's oceans without the doubtless source of water?

Finally, the arguer overlooks other matters that can form the oceans in Earth. For example, the chemical changes occurred in the surface or inside of Earth would conbine the hydrogen element to the oxygen element and led to water. Moreover, the argument is based on an insufficient support of the relationship between the rain falling on the surface of Earth and the water in Earth's oceans. As we know, water falling on Earth could be vaporized into the atmosphere again, or soak into the Earth's surface and absorbed by the soil. The arguer does not explain how could the rain be accumulated enough to form the oceans. So, his/her conclusion could hardly bear the careful consideration.

In sum, because the arguer makes many logical fallacies and provides insufficient evidences to support his argument, his opinion lacks credibility. A further study on the relation between ice of the comet and  water in Earth's oceans should be needed.

8.17 鼎钧大战结束
10.22 清华

GAOUMOU战队！！

回应
0

使用道具举报

amanda1011
UID: 2106668

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 5
寄托币: 800
注册时间: 2005-6-5
精华: 1
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-7-18 17:48:15 |只看该作者

唉，原以为打狗比较容易，现在心里也很慌。

虽然知道有哪些错误，可是如何把这些错误有层次地描述清楚，感觉比较头疼。我已经列好提纲写的，写了两篇，但发现其实在写的过程中即使准备了模板，遇到这种地理类的题目，有些现象的名词基本想不起来。莫非在准备提纲的时候还得把每个题目可能涉及到的词汇也整理一下？而且写的时候总觉得没法语言流利的来攻击这些错误，写的坑坑洼洼的。

8.17 鼎钧大战结束
10.22 清华

GAOUMOU战队！！

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报