argument50 彗星撞地球

boyjimUID: 125249

题目
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 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----
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets in that Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks while the heat from those collisions and the increasing gravitational energy of the planet would molten the comets. To justify the argument, the author further demonstrates a number of astronomical and physical facts, which result in a couple of false causal relationship. Explicitly, precise and cautious examination will disprove how groundless and dubious the conclusion is.

Firstly, It remains a question whether the temperature of earth shifted far before earth possess the current size, thus, if the temperature is tremendously low, as in the ice-age, to molten a comet, which is made up frozen water and gases, is extremely beyond the ability of the Earth. In addition, even if the temperature at that time is more or less identical to current situation, the author fails to detail the whole gamut of the procedure of the collision, it is possible that the temperature would deteriorate, resulting from the so small size of Earth. Hence, without listing all the parameters at that time, it is arbitrary to believe that the temperature, one of the most crucial elements to molten comets, can be compatible with current circumstances.

Secondly, granted that all the conditions could be considered as same as current situation, leading to the fact that comet’s collision would bring water to Earth, it is still skeptical and suspicious that, over billions of years, how many comets have collided with Earth and whether it is enough to form such immense and immeasurable ocean. Moreover, it is uncharted that how the size of the comet is and how much vapor will diffuse to cosmos while the Earth won’t hold the entire vapor brought in by comet. Consequently, it is unwarranted to attribute the ocean to the water brought by these coincidental but occasional collision.

Thirdly, it is misleading and misunderstanding that the author ascribes all the water in the Earth’s oceans to the collision of comets, simplifying the changeable situation. It is likely that not only the collision of comet will bring water but also other uncertain reasons, such as the collision of little planets, which cannot be neglected and is significantly possible to take place at that time. What is more, it is established that, not only the inner of the earth, but also whole surface of the planet, is suffered mass and acute chemical reactions at the original period: the burning of the methane, hydrogen and ammonia would definitely generate a great deal of water, while these gases are predominated in the atmosphere at the primitive Earth. Therefore, it is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated merely from comets.

Accordingly, because of the incomplete and unprovided evidences as well as false causal relationship, a more detail as well as muti-dimension consideration and consultation of reasoning will be appreciated in the statement. (504words)

tcaactUID: 186901

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets in that Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks while the heat from those collisions and the increasing gravitational energy of the planet would molten the comets. To justify the argument, the author further demonstrates a number of astronomical and physical facts, which result in a couple of false causal relationship. Explicitly, precise and cautious examination will disprove how groundless and dubious the conclusion is.

Firstly, It remains a question whether the temperature of earth shifted far before earth possess the current size, thus, if the temperature is tremendously low, as in the ice-age, to molten a comet, which is made up frozen water and gases, is extremely beyond the ability of the Earth. [这句有点含糊，整理一下~~] In addition, even if the temperature at that time is more or less identical to current situation[current 么?] , the author fails to detail the whole gamut of the procedure of the collision, it is possible that the temperature would deteriorate, resulting from the so small size of Earth. Hence, without listing all the parameters at that time, it is arbitrary to believe that the temperature, one of the most crucial elements to molten[resulting in the comets’ molten], can be compatible with current circumstances.[这段有点含糊，或许应该这首局摆出你的观点：作者的论调基于对现在现象的推广~~]

Secondly, granted that all the conditions could be considered as same as current situation, leading to the fact that comet’s collision would bring water to Earth, it is still skeptical and suspicious that, over billions of years, how many comets have collided with Earth and whether it is [they were ] enough to form such immense and immeasurable ocean. Moreover, it is uncharted that how[what] the size of the comet is and how much vapor will diffuse to cosmos while the Earth won’t hold the entire vapor brought in by comet.[事态好像不是很对] Consequently, it is unwarranted to attribute the ocean to the water brought by these coincidental but occasional collision.

Thirdly, it is misleading and misunderstanding that the author ascribes all the water in the Earth’s oceans to the collision of comets, simplifying the changeable situation. It is likely that not only the collision of comet will bring water but also other uncertain reasons, such as the collision of little planets, which cannot be neglected and is significantly possible to take place at that time. What is more, it is established that, not only the inner of the earth, but also whole surface of the planet, is suffered mass and acute chemical reactions at the original period: the burning of the methane, hydrogen and ammonia would definitely generate a great deal of water, while these gases are predominated in the atmosphere at the primitive Earth. Therefore, it is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated merely from comets.[后面的例子很好，就不用前面的了，前面的没有什么说服力的~~]

Accordingly, because of the incomplete and unprovided evidences as well as false causal relationship, a more detail as well as muti-dimension consideration and consultation of reasoning will be appreciated in the statement. (504words)

嗯，比我的好~~
而且字数也很多，呵呵~~
我基本上是来不及~~
但感觉有很多句子，太长~~
可以适当用点短的句子~~

boyjimUID: 125249

现在特别喜欢堆积长句子。。。习惯成自然了。。。
我这篇是2月份写的 当时写了2个小时 包括思考。。。。

猫猫624UID: 171232

作者的第一段论证不够清楚.,是不是可以从地球起源的假说上讨论一下.后面两段挺好的.

pringleUID: 195431

我觉得collision就能引起温度的上升，而且至少能使彗星冰晶融化，温度的问题不太好说。