2009进军美利坚作文小组goback211第九次作业

goback211UID: 2419259

第三个理由没太听清

In the reading material, the author outlines three reasons to challenge the giant-impact theory. On the contrary, the professor of the talk disagrees with it. He believes that the reasons from the passage are not sound.

Firstly, in contrast to the argument stated in the reading that there is no huge mark in the earth, the speaker points out that the moon was formed four billion years ago. So with the influence of climate and the movement of the plates, the surface rock has changed greatly and the mark must have disappeared.

Secondly, the writer says that if the giant-impact theory is right, there should be water or other volatile element in the rock of moon. On the other hand, the lecture departs from this idea by saying that during the collision, the temperature of the heated material was so high that any water among them would be evaporated. So it is not surprising that there is no water among the rock of moon.

Thirdly, the passage suggests that the density of the moon is lower compared to other planets. And the core of the moon takes only a small part of weight in the whole. However, the talk maintains a contradictory viewpoint of it. The professor introduces that because the impact happened in the surface of the earth, the density of the moon material should be similar with the surface of the earth, not the core. And it is also verified by the fact. So the low density of moon is a normal phenomenon.

To sum up, the lecture contradicts the ideas of the passage that the giant-impact is somewhat wrong. The professor uses three reasons to demonstrate that the argument in the reading is not reliable.

泡面UID: 2513568

In the reading material, the author outlines three reasons to challenge the giant-impact theory. On the contrary, the professor of the talk disagrees with it. He believes that the reasons from the passage are not sound.

U# u5 j) s
Firstly, in contrast to the argument stated in the reading that there is no huge mark in (on) the earth, the speaker points out that the moon was formed four billion years ago. So with the influence of climate and the movement of the plates, the surface rock has changed greatly and the mark must have disappeared.

% [6 P( e, T* J& R% ?; t8 S  S7 O
Secondly, the writer says that if the giant-impact theory is right, there should be water or other volatile element in the rock of moon. On the other hand,（这个用的不太对吧） the lecture departs from this idea by saying that during the collision, the temperature of the heated material was so high that any water among them would be evaporated. So it is not surprising that there is no water among the rock of moon(Moon最好Moon Earth首字母都改为大写)., r: }5 D7 [& N' U

Thirdly, the passage suggests that the density of the moon is lower compared to other planets. And the core of the moon takes only a small part of weight in the(as a ) whole. However, the talk maintains a contradictory viewpoint of it. The professor introduces that because the impact happened in(on) the surface of the earth, the density of the moon material should be similar with the surface of the earth, not the core. And it is also verified by the fact. So the low density of moon is a normal phenomenon.

To sum up, the lecture contradicts the ideas of the passage that the giant-impact is somewhat wrong. The professor uses three reasons to demonstrate that the argument in the reading is not reliable.

觉得写的很好哎~有些词用的很好，学习下，我听的也不是很全，所以要膜拜下你的了~
记得改我的哦，虽然很烂，谢谢了……

liunian1031UID: 2670872

2# 泡面

In the reading material, the author outlines three reasons to challenge the giant-impact theory. On the contrary, the professor of the talk disagrees with it. He believes that the reasons from the passage are not sound.

Firstly, in contrast to the argument stated in the reading that there is no huge mark in the earth, the speaker points out that the moon was formed four billion(这个我听成million了~差点也给你改错了~⊙﹏⊙b) years ago. So with the influence of climate and the movement of the plates, the surface rock has changed greatly and the mark must have disappeared.

Secondly, the writer says that if the giant-impact theory is right, there should be water or other volatile element in the rock of moon. On the other hand, the lecture departs from this idea by saying that during the collision, the temperature of the heated material was so high that any water among them would be evaporated. So it is not surprising that there is no water among the rock of moon.* @$ L" }* A% ]7 |" v5 k; A

Thirdly, the passage suggests that the density of the moon is lower compared to other planets. And the core of the moon takes only a small part of weight in the whole. However, the talk maintains a contradictory viewpoint of it. The professor introduces that because the impact happened in the surface of the earth, the density of the moon material should be similar with the surface of the earth, not the core.(这里我以为是moon的core了~是我听错了吧~T_T) And it is also verified by the fact. So the low density of the moon is a normal phenomenon.; }8 T+ k- w3 e4 I! P) a3 E
  i6 q1 c4 f5 z, x/ N: ]5 T

To sum up, the lecture contradicts the ideas of the passage that the giant-impact is somewhat wrong. The professor uses three reasons to demonstrate that the argument in the reading is not reliable.7 X

总体写的挺好的，你的听力笔记一定做得很全吧~~~很多内容原来我都听错了……T_T~
再就是Moon 和Earth是不是都应该是一直大写啊~~~
- I8 b$ ]$ C- p/ c3 v8 M! a1 u: e