【Big Fish】03月17日Argument50--By rokre2tt

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

In this argument, the author analyzes the original source of the water in Earth's oceans. Based on such a assumption that the Earth is formed by the collision of space rocks, and the original Earth doesn’t have atmosphere, so the author concludes that just the comets striking in the Earth supply sufficient water for the oceans. It seems a rational conclusion, but after a research to the author's analysis, there are some logical flaws in the argument.

First of all, the assumption that Earth is formed by collision of space rocks is open to doubt. There are not sufficient evidences to prove such an assumption in this argument. Perhaps Earth just like what it is now at first, and there are not many collision with space rocks during the later period. As the author doesn't supply more messages about this, such an assumption is insubstantial.

Secondly, the author refers that any present water evaporate and go off into space, it maybe excessive. It's possible that some extent water leaves under the surface of Earth, albeit not much, but the author makes an extreme conclusion, which is not proper here. Though because of the heat of original Earth is so high and without the atmosphere, but such water buried under the surface of Earth deeply may reserve, for they cannot through the thick crust.

Thirdly, the time that sufficient comets striking into Earth is worthy to doubt. According to the author's saying, before Earth has enough gravitation there will be not enough water can maintain around Earth. So only the comets striking into Earth after it has enough gravitation, the author's conclusion could be right. However, there are no evidence to prove that sufficient comets striking into Earth at that time. Maybe most of comets which striking into Earth are just before that time, so the conclusion will be wrong. Without out enough evidences about this, the conclusion is incredible.

Fourthly, the author ignores other possible source of the water in Earth's oceans. Since the original Earth has water from itself, no one can guarantee that the later Earth doesn't supply any water. Perhaps such a process is still active. For example, the eruption of volcanoes can extract water from the deep area under Earth's surface. Maybe it is the main source of the water in Earth's oceans.

In summarize, the author makes assumptions without sufficient evidence, and the analysis is not rational enough, so the conclusion is unsubstantial. To reinforce it, we should have more messages. They may include, the accurate forming mechanism of Earth, the sufficient evidence about the comets striking into Earth, and other factors can form the water in Earth's oceans.

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

1# rokre2tt

In this argument, the author analyzes the original source of the water in Earth's oceans. Based on such a assumption that the Earth is formed by the collision of space rocks, and the original Earth doesn’t have atmosphere, so the author concludes that just the comets striking in the Earth supply sufficient water for the oceans. It seems a rational conclusion, but after a research to the author's analysis, there are some logical flaws in the argument.

First of all, the assumption that Earth is formed by collision of space rocks is open to doubt. There are not sufficient evidences to prove such an assumption in this argument. Perhaps Earth just like what it is now at first, and there are not many collision with space rocks during the later period. As the author doesn't supply more messages about this, such an assumption is insubstantial.   认证地球可能不是太空石头形成这一点是成功的,最好能在后面加上,如果地球不是太空石头形成的,那ARGUER的论证会出怎么的问题

Secondly, the author refers that any present water evaporate and go off into space, it maybe excessive. It's possible that some extent water leaves under the surface of Earth, albeit not much, but the author makes an extreme conclusion, which is not proper here. Though because of the heat of original Earth is so high and without the atmosphere, but such water buried under the surface of Earth deeply may reserve, for they cannot through the thick crust. 我之前也想打这个点,但好像地球表面都这么高温了,那里面不是更高吗,水都汽化了,我就不清楚这种情况下这些水能不能出来

Thirdly, the time that sufficient comets striking into Earth is worthy to doubt. According to the author's saying, before Earth has enough gravitation there will be not enough water can maintain around Earth. So only the comets striking into Earth after it has enough gravitation, the author's conclusion could be right. However, there are no evidence to prove that sufficient comets striking into Earth at that time. Maybe most of comets which striking into Earth are just before that time, so the conclusion will be wrong. Without out enough evidences about this, the conclusion is incredible.

Fourthly, the author ignores other possible source of the water in Earth's oceans. Since the original Earth has water from itself, no one can guarantee that the later Earth doesn't supply any water. Perhaps such a process is still active. For example, the eruption of volcanoes can extract water from the deep area under Earth's surface. Maybe it is the main source of the water in Earth's oceans. 这段好像和第二段一样都.

In summarize, the author makes assumptions without sufficient evidence, and the analysis is not rational enough, so the conclusion is unsubstantial. To reinforce it, we should have more messages. They may include, the accurate forming mechanism of Earth, the sufficient evidence about the comets striking into Earth, and other factors can form the water in Earth's oceans.


语言基本可以,文章结构调整一下就最好了.