Argu50 Earth's Water 大家支持啊，考试倒计时了（还有6天）~~

tcaactUID: 186901

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:
'At the first glance, the arguer's conclusion about the origination of the Earth's water seems credible. However, a critical scrutiny reveals that since the final assertion depends on a course of unfunded deduction, the argument is unconvincing as it stands.

The main fallacy of the argument is that the process of the arguer's deduction is based on the main assumption: "Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks."  However, that is not necessarily the case. We all know that in the scientific field, "how does the Earth form" is still a mystery. Though there does exist some supporters and evidence for this hypothesis: Earth comes from the BIG BANG. There has been no final decision about the true process. As the arguer's deduction rests on this unsubstantiated hypothesis, his final conclusion is open to doubt, at best.

The second flaw that might undermine the conclusion is the arguer's further assumptions about the comets. First, the arguer assumes that there were sufficient comets striking the earth at the critical stage in the process of the water's origination. However, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Since we are not informed about the number or the constitution of these comets, it is entirely possible that no comets at all struck the Earth during the period when the ocean forms. In addition, even if there did exist such comets, the arguer’s further assumptions: [either] that the Earth's surface was cooled and solidified [or that the heat created during the striking was sufficient for all the comets becoming into vapor] have no warrant. [Unless the arguer could provide credible evidence to support all these and other assumptions about the comets], we could not be convinced easily that those vapor or rain, if any, were come from the comets ,let alone , staying  on the earth rather than being absorbed by hot surface.

In addition, the author fails to take into account the other possible explanations for the origination of the ocean’s water. Since there is no assurance that all of the ocean's water today originated from the same kind of water, the arguer's conclusion leaves the doubt that some water comes from the under-earth , such as the water vapor of volcano. [Or how could the arguer explain his own assertion that: “its gravitation became strong enough to hold ‘gases’ and ‘water’ vapor around it as an atmosphere” , if there was no water at all before the water came from the striking comets? ]

In conclusion, because the argument is depended on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, the arguer’s final conclusion is not as convincing as it seems to be.  To strengthen his assertion,  the author should provide better evidence to support the hypothesis that: the Earth is created by the  BIG Bang. To better evaluate the argument, we need more specific evidence about both the comets and the conditions of the Earth during the mentioned period.


写得巨恶心不已~~时间也不够，刚能检查到第二段。中间用[  ] 加的时候来填的，因为实在不忍心把原来更恶心的东西给大家看~~

谢谢，谢谢，请一定指教~~

tcaactUID: 186901

各位，实在是有点绝望了，请帮忙改一下，感激不尽~~

boyjimUID: 125249

我也写了 你等一下哦~

boyjimUID: 125249

The main fallacy of the argument is that the process of the arguer's deduction is based on the main assumption [果然不用老土的开头阿，不过我写习惯了哎] : "Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks." However, that is not necessarily the case. We all know that in the scientific field, "how does the Earth form" is still a mystery. [这个不是给出的证据么？怎么这个也可以剥] Though there does exist some supporters and evidence for this hypothesis: Earth comes from the BIG BANG. [这不是写issue不要让步拉] There has been no final decision about the true process. As the arguer's deduction rests on this unsubstantiated hypothesis, his final conclusion is open to doubt, at best.

The second flaw that might undermine the conclusion is the arguer's further assumptions about the comets. First, [有first怎么后面就没有second 了呢？况且前面开头用了second这里不要用了] the arguer assumes that there were sufficient comets striking the earth at the critical stage in the process of the water's origination. However, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Since we are not informed about the number or the constitution of these comets, it is entirely possible that no comets at all struck the Earth during the period when the ocean forms. In addition, even if there did exist such comets, the arguer’s further assumptions: either that the Earth's surface was cooled and solidified or that the heat created during the striking was sufficient for all the comets becoming into vapor have no warrant. [为什么没有warranted?说明理由：我的理由就是当时的质量可能没有current size所以不能够保持vapor] Unless the arguer could provide credible evidence to support all these and other assumptions about the comets, we could not be convinced easily that those vapor or rain, if any, were come from the comets ,let alone , staying on the earth rather than being absorbed by hot surface.

In addition, the author fails to take into account the other possible explanations for the origination of the ocean’s water. Since there is no assurance that all of the ocean's water today originated from the same kind of water, the arguer's conclusion leaves the doubt that some water comes from the under-earth , such as the water vapor of volcano. Or how could the arguer explain his own assertion that: “its gravitation became strong enough to hold ‘gases’ and ‘water’ vapor around it as an atmosphere” , if there was no water at all before the water came from the striking comets?

In conclusion, because the argument is depended on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, the arguer’s final conclusion is not as convincing as it seems to be. To strengthen his assertion, the author should provide better evidence to support the hypothesis that: the Earth is created by the BIG Bang. To better evaluate the argument, we need more specific evidence about both the comets and the conditions of the Earth during the mentioned period.
[感觉错误只有第三点说得比较清晰，第二个理由没有给出充分的可能性，第一个理由是论据，自我感觉不能够驳，argument我们是要驳论据到结论中的假设和推理过程，我自己也写了很长时间，写之前问过老师。快来帮我改]

tcaactUID: 186901

开头是我弄错了，嘿嘿，粘到题目上了～～
这篇是不好太驳，但我觉得只有从最更本上驳才有力～～
其他的错误，我真觉得很牵强～～
写的时候就感觉很不好～～

鬼谷子UID: 159645

我先占着

DriverEntryUID: 143979

同意4楼的。驳斥的第一个BODY是人家的论据，就算你不同意，也不要驳斥他。ARGU考的是你的逻辑思辩的能力，不是考你的物理，天文知识。

后面2段基本思路是可以的，但是有的地方写的不是很清楚。

这篇是比较难写的，不用太难过

imjasonUID: 176604

同意
据XDF的修瑞老师说，这个题目考到的可能性几乎为零
确实有点变态的那种
其实ARGU的题目我觉得都还是有点道理的，假如要我们自己来做STUDY 也许也会写成那个样子，唉……

tcaactUID: 186901

呵呵，当时挑的就是自己认为最难写的一篇之一，但我觉得在他的推理过程中还真的没有什么大的纰漏，这才让人难办啊~~

大家讨论讨论吧，尽管几率很低~~

:D

鬼谷子UID: 159645

'At the first glance, the arguer's conclusion about the origination of the Earth's water seems credible. However, a critical scrutiny reveals that since the final assertion depends on a course of unfunded deduction, the argument is unconvincing as it stands【这样的开头比模板好多了】

The main fallacy of the argument is that the process of the arguer's deduction is based on the main assumption: "Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks." However, that is not necessarily the case. We all know that in the scientific field, "how does the Earth form" is still a mystery. Though there does exist some supporters and evidence for this hypothesis: Earth comes from the BIG BANG. There has been no final decision about the true process. As the arguer's deduction rests on this unsubstantiated hypothesis, his final conclusion is open to doubt, at best. 【这个这个。。按照我的理解，这个是一个作者引用的一般真理，不能驳的。而且，这个半句的前提跟后面没什么关系的，因为作者关于水来源的论断不是建立在地球如何形成上面的。还有，这个前提的后半句，撞击使水分蒸发正好可以驳斥题目的，即使彗星撞了地球也可能是水分都蒸发到太空了。。为什么要驳斥这个半句呢？】

The second flaw that might undermine the conclusion is the arguer's further assumptions about the comets. First, the arguer assumes that there were sufficient comets striking the earth at the critical stage in the process of the water's origination. However, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Since we are not informed about the number or the constitution of these comets, it is entirely possible that no comets at all struck the Earth during the period when the ocean forms. In addition, even if there did exist such comets, the arguer’s further assumptions: [either] that the Earth's surface was cooled and solidified [or that the heat created during the striking was sufficient for all the comets becoming into vapor] have no warrant. [Unless the arguer could provide credible evidence to support all these and other assumptions about the comets], we could not be convinced easily that those vapor or rain, if any, were come from the comets ,let alone , staying on the earth rather than being absorbed by hot surface. 【than后面的内容不对，应该说是蒸发到太空等等】

In addition, the author fails to take into account the other possible explanations for the origination of the ocean’s water. Since there is no assurance that all of the ocean's water today originated from the same kind of water, the arguer's conclusion leaves the doubt that some water comes from the under-earth , such as the water vapor of volcano. [Or how could the arguer explain his own assertion that: “its gravitation became strong enough to hold ‘gases’ and ‘water’ vapor around it as an atmosphere” , if there was no water at all before the water came from the striking comets? ] 【括号中的东西可以另起一段的，不要把问题混着说】

In conclusion, because the argument is depended on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, the arguer’s final conclusion is not as convincing as it seems to be. To strengthen his assertion, the author should provide better evidence to support the hypothesis that: the Earth is created by the BIG Bang. To better evaluate the argument, we need more specific evidence about both the comets and the conditions of the Earth during the mentioned period.
【这个题目有难度，感觉虽然你把错误点都找到了，但是反驳的不是很清晰有力。加油！】

龙非UID: 193190

关键是逻辑不够清楚，这道题作者的结论基于几个前提
1）在地球到达足够体积之后有彗星撞过地球
2）即使撞过，彗星与地球相撞之后的水也不一定是留在地球而不会跑到太空
3）即使是撞过且留在地球，还有其他给地球带来水的可能

每一段明确地驳斥一个足够了