argument50今晚的同主题呀！各位猛拍呀！我晚上回来拍你的！

yysuUID: 205455

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the water in Earth's oceans is originated from comets. To support the argument the speaker put the evidence that the heat produced by the collisions of space rocks and form the increasing gravitational energy of the planet could molten it. In addition, the speaker also cites that the comets are largely ice which are made up of frozen water and gases, which therefore could produce vapors when striking the Earth. Closely scrutiny the argument would reveal that how groundless it is.

To begin with, the speaker assumes that the temperature of the Earth since its formation is unchanging. In fact, there is no evidence that could convince us that the temperature is stable. It is possible that the temperature in the earth is changing from time to time, which therefore is not hot enough to molten the comets. Unless the speaker has ruled out these reasons, it could not make us convince.

Secondly, the speaker make the assumption that comet is the only origin of the water on Earth. However, he did not put evidence that there are no other reasons which could cause the water on Earth. It is possibly that the vapors which come from the breaking out of the crater is also an important origin of the ocean water. Besides, perhaps the melt of the iceberg on Earth could lead to this, too.

Even if the comets are the only origin of the water on Earth, it could not necessarily convince us that it can produce enough vapors that lead to the water enough in the ocean of the Earth. Since the speaker did not tell us how many comets have collides the Earth and whether the numbers are enough to bring water needed for the oceans. It is perhaps the times and numbers of the comets which conflict of the earth are so few that they could not bring the water come into being.

In summary, this argument relies on certain doubtful assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide clear evidence that the comets are the only origin of the Earth's ocean water, to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information  regarding that the times of collisions and its numbers are great enough to produce water.

victor2005UID: 2106670

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the water in Earth's oceans is originated from comets. To support the argument the speaker put the evidence that the heat produced by the collisions of space rocks and form the increasing gravitational energy of the planet could molten it. In addition, the speaker also cites that the comets are largely ice which are made up of frozen water and gases, which therefore could produce vapors when striking the Earth. Closely scrutiny of the argument would reveal that how groundless it is.

To begin with, the speaker assumes that the temperature of the Earth since its formation is unchanging. (我觉得作者并没有说是地表温度高引起彗星融化，而是撞击产生的热量引起的)In fact, there is no evidence that could convince us that the temperature is stable. It is possible that the temperature in the earth is changing from time to time, which therefore is not hot enough to molten the comets. Unless the speaker has ruled out these reasons, it could not make us convince.

Secondly, the speaker make the assumption that comet is the only origin of the water on Earth. However, he did not put evidence that there are no other reasons which could cause the water on Earth. It is possibly that the vapors which come from the breaking out of the crater is also an important origin of the ocean water. Besides, perhaps the melt of the iceberg on Earth could lead to this, too.（觉这个假设好象有点不妥，那么形成冰山的水是哪里来的呢？）
Even if the comets are the only origin of the water on Earth, it could not necessarily convince us that it can produce enough vapors that lead to the water enough in the ocean of the Earth. Since the speaker did not tell us how many comets have collides the Earth and whether the numbers are enough to bring water needed for the oceans. It is perhaps the times and numbers of the comets which conflict of the earth are so few that they could not bring the water come into being.

In summary, this argument relies on certain doubtful assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide clear evidence that the comets are the only origin of the Earth's ocean water, to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information  regarding that the times of collisions and its numbers are great enough to produce water.


我也写了，给点意见吧:)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=299715

bayern_scienceUID: 2102974

Agree with the 2nd floor, I don't think it worth doubting about the temperatue.

And where did the water from the craters come from? Even there was, the author has mentioned that, it should have melten and escaped. How do you explain that?


For your reference:
My response:  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=299326
Waiting for your criticism!

bayern_scienceUID: 2102974

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=325681

Waiting for your criticism
谢谢！！！