2009 进军美利坚作文8.28-machi730

machi730UID: 2672537

综合写作 practice4


The speaker disagrees with the assertion of the passage that the Tunguska explosion was caused by a "swamp gas" explosion instead of an asteroid. She provides reasons as follows.



First, the speaker suggests that the absence of the fragments does not necessarily prove that the meteoric explosion did not take place in Tunguska. She claims that it is very possible that the traces had already been destroyed by the force of nature when the scientists went to search for them 19 years later. She also points out that the fragments of meteoric explosion in Canada was searched by the scientists within two weeks, so it cannot be simply compared with the Tunguska's case.



Second, the speaker points out that the fact that no crater was found in Tunguska is also reasonable and explainable. Since if the explosion took place in the lower atmosphere, instead of hit the ground directly, no crater would be made. This assumption weakens the evidence provided by the passage effectively.



Lastly, the speaker claims that the "swamp gas" explosion theory cannot explain the phenomenon of the fireball reasonably. Because there was only one single fireball observed, while the "swamp gas" explosion does not usually concentrate in one point. So she suggests that the passage's argument is not convincing enough.



To sum up, the speaker rebuts the passage's view by providing the three reasons stated above.

goback211UID: 2419259

Thespeaker disagrees with the assertion of the passage that the Tunguskaexplosion was caused by a "swamp gas" explosion instead of anasteroid. She provides reasons as follows.
First,the speaker suggests that the absence of the fragments does not necessarilyprove that the meteoric explosion did not take place in Tunguska.She claims that it is very possible that the traces had already been destroyedby the force of nature when the scientists went to search for them 19 yearslater. She also points out that the fragment of meteoric explosion in Canada was searched by the scientists within twoweeks, so it cannot be simply compared with the Tunguska'scase.(很好，细节很全)
Second, the speaker points out that thefact that no crater was found in Tunguska isalso reasonable and explainable. Since if the explosion took place in the loweratmosphere, instead of hit(hitting) the grounddirectly, no crater would be made. This assumption weakens the evidenceprovided by the passage effectively.
Lastly, the speaker claims that the"swamp gas" explosion theory cannot explain the phenomenon of thefireball reasonably. Because there was only one single fireball observed, whilethe "swamp gas" explosion does not usually concentrate in one point.So she suggests that the passage's argument is not convincing enough.

To sum up, the speaker rebuts the passage'sview by providing the three reasons stated above.

写的不错，没啥问题，看来你听力不错，细节都听清了，赞

arimidyUID: 2673973

The speaker disagrees with the assertion of the passage that the Tunguska explosion was caused by a "swamp gas" explosion instead of an asteroid(首句过于复杂，意思容易混淆). She provides reasons as follows.  t0 m! r: a# r) ~
6 U; ~2 x+ c6 A, ^* Q

y" F, q6 y* G0 b% y
First, the speaker suggests that the absence of the fragments does not necessarily prove that the meteoric explosion did not take place in Tunguska. She claims that it is very possible that the traces had already been destroyed by the force of nature when the scientists went to search for them 19 years later. She also points out that the fragments of meteoric explosion in Canada was searched by the scientists within two weeks（又是容易混淆的句子，建议分句）, so it cannot be simply compared with the Tunguska's case.

Second, the speaker points out that the fact that no crater was found in Tunguska is also reasonable and explainable. Since if the explosion took place in the lower atmosphere, instead of hit the ground directly, no crater would be made. This assumption weakens the evidence provided by the passage effectively.
}: [, ~* G& `

Lastly, the speaker claims that the "swamp gas" explosion theory cannot explain the phenomenon of the fireball reasonably. Because there was only one single fireball observed, while the "swamp gas" explosion does not usually concentrate in one point. So she suggests that the passage's argument is not convincing enough.
A' O* r9 F7 B5 E
3 a5 u9 ~( U" }3 i

To sum up, the speaker rebuts the passage's view by providing the three reasons stated above.

强烈建议分句～～～