0510G同主题写作第四期－－Argument50 彗星撞地球

shanekunUID：2104358

短网一天，来迟了。。。。。
outline
1 在高温高压的情况下，水分不一定蒸发。即时蒸发了也可能一时无法通过地壳逃逸
2 因此，水分就有可能以结晶的形式在地核或地壳下存在，并随火山喷发逸出
3 化学，生物反应也有可能生成水

https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D5
楼上的，和我同一天啊，你也是在南大吗

pciciUID：210908

https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=300251
交作业

1．地球过去形成时的状态（可以通过冲撞的力量融化行星）是否延续至它足以维持住周围水蒸气的时候？（过去推断当时）
2．作者没有提供证据在地球足以维持住水气之后有彗星撞过地球而且数量足以形成海洋。（未经证实的假设）
3．还有其他可能导致海洋的形成。（非此即彼）


楼主的第一个论点有些不妥，文中只说是冲撞的温度和行星重力势能转化而来的能量使行星融化，和地球本身的温度好像没有多大关系。我不知道我的作业里，第一点改的成不成功，等拍中……

iPodUID：2105485

顶啊！
明天交作业啊

sharonhyUID：2102195

限时完成了，瓦咔咔咔咔～
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D103

Archer1123UID：206148

https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=300435

MIMOSARLUID：2112846

https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=300485

piggybabyUID：2114706

可攻击点:
(1)        彗星的组成: 没有提供证据说明它与海洋里的水的组成一致
(2)        文章”Because comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, a comet striking Earth then would have vaporized.” 没有因果关系。仅仅因为由冰组成的就说它能蒸发吗？不对，忽视了一些其他条件：比如需要温度（光照） 以及撞击时产生的热量足够大使它融化。
(3)        水蒸气一定会留在大气层吗？文章没有排除其他可能比如大气层已饱和（不太实际） 或者撞击产生的气流力量远远超过地球的引力而把水蒸气卷走了。
(4)        最终以降雨形式一定落在地球表面时，地球的表面一定是已冷却而且坚硬的吗？ 水蒸气变成雨滴既凝结的时候要放热，因此温度降得可能比地表更快，因此当它变成雨滴落下来的时候，地表可能还没有完全冷却。
(5)        最后，地球海洋的水分不一定是全来自于彗星。其他情况比如：许多矿石含有结晶水或高温分解会产生水，既发生在地球物质的化学作用所制造出来。

tangjihedeUID：2107695

占座，督促自己写！

交作业：

https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ Last edited by tangjihede on 2005-7-16 at 10:20 ]

zhangleighostUID：175136

希望各位看看，有丁点儿回复必全心回拍！
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=300907

songwei1765UID：202658

看了一下很多人的提纲，大家还是想得很仔细，从科学角度上来讲，很多人给出了非常专业的推测。但是提醒一点，agument的逻辑错误是从作者所给信息中找遗漏、错误、妄断....明确点说，就是：即便是广为人知的理论，如果同作者的论断有关系而被忽略的，同样要提出来；反之，即便是作者犯了常识性的错误，如果从题给信息中并不能推出这点错误，而只能凭大家的学识背景判断出来的，要首先让位于能从题意中分析的错误来。

楼主分析得不错，除了第一点有点牵强外，别外两点应该抓住要点了。
再补充一点，作者只是给出了当地球达到现在的大小时与慧星中水的关系，但并没给出地球未达到现在大小时与慧星中水的关系。

基本点应该就这些。piggybaby同不学提的很详细，不过你提的大部分是从科普方面去考虑了，ETS可能不会再意这些，而只关注你提的是不是他的逻辑错误。比如：4点就太牵强了。1和5点可以合到一起来谈。

leo_chenUID：206840

养了2天病，现补交作业
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

bingwaterUID：2116559

我的第一篇，希望大家多指正！谢谢！

https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=301027

ardorousUID：2115432

The argument seems to come from a science magazine, the author demonstrates that at the beginning of earth formed , the collisions and the increasing gravitational energy made many heat thus leading to the molting of the entire planet. Then the arguer conclude that as the reason of heat the water will not present at the some form we saw today , rather , they evaporated and went into space. Another process the author describe is that component of comets are largely ice forming as water and gases, when the comets collide with the earth, the water from it retained in the atmosphere ,eventually becomes the oceans .consequently , the author then try to convince us that  the originating of water on the earth might be the comets.
At first glance , the assumptions sound reasonable , but when profound thinking , we may find the argument suffers from many mistakes.
At first , the conclusion that the Earth's water at the stage of collision has all become evaporation opens to doubt. firstly , the evidence built on at the beginning stage the earth formed, its heat leads to the water all become evaporation and went off into space is groundless , imaging the situation the author said , there will be a definite conclusion , for the size of the earth from the beginning to the current size spans a period of time , in this time the water of the earth may all become evaporation ,and without the gravitation to haul it around the earth , it will gone off into space , never come back . In this case ,there will not be an atmosphere around the earth. Conversely, at this period the evaporation cools, falling down to the earth .  A more convincing assumption may be built on the research on if all the water become the evaporation , or there are some left , how many would it be.
Another fallacy the author built is to oversimplify the conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans must have been originated form comets. From the first fallacy , we may conclude there may be some water left on the earth  after the collision ,moreover , the formation of earth have experience a large number of time, during this period , the water from the cosmos may come back to the earth at any chance , in addition ,  even the after the collision between the earth and the comets, the ice and water from the comets become the evaporation around the earth , at last , falling as rains .No one can definitely confirms that the evaporation falling on the earth is really from the cosmos or from the earth former atmosphere.
In conclusion , the argument suffer from two distinguish fallacy to eventually conclude the origination of the rain if from the cosmos and the false assumption that the originate water on the earth all become evaporation , to strength the idea of the author , there need more convincing researches and evidences.

claymanUID：2102470

我的第二篇argument
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

claymanUID：2102470

又超时...
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1