argument50，公认较难题，请高手批阅！

wubabalaUID: 205924

——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——
In this analysis, the arguer intends to prove that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that comets, largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, struck Earth then would have vaporized, and that the resulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere and eventually fall as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth. As it stands, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the water in Earth’s oceans is originated from other celestial bodies or processes rather than from comets. In fact, astronomers have already found some certain celestial bodies, like planets, possess a great deal of ice under their surface. These celestial bodies or planets have reasonable possibility to strike the Earth, just like comets do. Or perhaps, elements inside Earth itself may turn into water through some kinds of complex processes. Before showing us only comets among celestial bodies in the universe have the possibility to strike Earth, and ruling out the possibility that the water’s formation in Earth rather than comets striking Earth, the arguer cannot reach the conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets.

In addition, we might also ask: do comets striking Earth have enough ice that eventually turns into water to form all oceans in Earth? The argument fails to provide evidence to respond to this question. It is very likely that comets striking Earth hold too little ice to form oceans, which carry a great quantity of water. In this case, the arguer cannot convince us the conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans is all transformed from comets’ ice.

Another element to consider is that: what was the period in which comets strike the Earth? If the striking before the period which Earth’s gravitation is enough to hold gases and water, water would not remain in the Earth. However, the arguer provides nothing concerning the period of striking occurred and the period in which Earth approached its current size in order to its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it.

Finally, to reach the conclusion, the arguer assumes that the water vapor result of comets striking Earth eventually fall as rain. But we cannot see any evidence about this process that have taken place. Rain’s formation needs special conditions, and the arguer puts forward nothing about these conditions at the era of comets striking Earth.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between comets striking and the fact that the origination of the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets, the arguer would have to provide dear evidence that comets are the unique celestial bodies with abundant ice or water to strike the Earth. To better assess the argument, we would need more information regarding the amount of comets’ ice, the time of the striking and the climate condition at that age of the striking.

wubabalaUID: 205924

怎么没人？

wubabalaUID: 205924

来个热心肠的帮忙吧，唉～

connieUID: 203382

In this analysis, the arguer intends to prove that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that comets, largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, struck Earth then would have vaporized, and that the resulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere and eventually fall as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth. As it stands, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.个人觉得太多了些，可以适当少点

First of all, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the water in Earth’s oceans is originated from other celestial bodies or processes rather than from comets. In fact, astronomers have already found some certain celestial bodies, like planets, possess a great deal of ice under their surface. These celestial bodies or planets have reasonable possibility to strike the Earth, just like comets do. Or perhaps, elements inside Earth itself may turn into water through some kinds of complex processes. Before showing us only comets among celestial bodies in the universe have the possibility to strike Earth, and ruling out the possibility that the water’s formation in Earth rather than comets striking Earth,这句在说什么呀，好象有些太复杂了，分成两句会不会好些 the arguer cannot reach the conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets.

In addition, we might also ask: do comets striking Earth have enough ice that eventually turns into water to form all oceans in Earth? The argument fails to provide evidence to respond to this question. It is very likely that comets striking Earth hold too little ice to form oceans, which carry a great quantity of water. In this case, the arguer cannot convince us the conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans is all transformed from comets’ ice.

Another element to consider is that: what was the period in which comets strike the Earth? If the striking before the period which Earth’s gravitation is enough to hold gases and water, water would not remain in the Earth. However, the arguer provides nothing concerning the period of striking occurred and the period in which Earth approached its current size in order to its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it.这点找得挺好的，赞一个

Finally, to reach the conclusion, the arguer assumes that the water vapor result of comets striking Earth eventually fall as rain. But we cannot see any evidence about this process that have taken place. Rain’s formation needs special conditions, and the arguer puts forward nothing about these conditions at the era of comets striking Earth.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between comets striking and the fact that the origination of the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets, the arguer would have to provide dear evidence that comets are the unique celestial bodies with abundant ice or water to strike the Earth. To better assess the argument, we would need more information regarding the amount of comets’ ice, the time of the striking and the climate condition at that age of the striking.中间论证有些太少了，头尾写得多了些，而且中间的驳斥点不是特别好，至少论述不充分吧

wubabalaUID: 205924

头尾是模板凑字数，不过也基本得这样写。
中间只能把可能的点找出来，由于题目本身的复杂性根本不会再怎么展开——用中文也只能写这么个深度，呵呵～～
俺主要是担心写出一些令老外反感的错误句子来......