argument50 感觉写得可以，要是是限时写的多好啊。回拍模范。

edgarluUID: 203648

Argument50:
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.'

Article:
Basically, the author of this manuscript draws his conclusion on the following hypotheses: Earth must have been stricken before by comets which contained the amount of water as much as that in today's earthly oceans; Earth could retain the water of striking comets in the atmosphere and on the surface; Comet is the only possible source of water supply in the history of Earth. Although he made very specific explanation and analysis for it, either his conclusion or the whole reasoning process to reach it still seems unacceptable to me.

Firstly, is it a certain thing that Earth has ever been stricken by comets? The collision of comets and planets does not happen every day, the odds of which is actually very low, especially considering that Earth is a relatively small planet among its brothers and sisters. It's well known that in the late 1990's a comet knocked into Jupiter, the biggest planet among all the ones in the Solar System, which was the only comet-planet collision incidence observed in the human history. Comparing our Earth with tremendous Jupiter, it's like an ant versus a buffalo. Thinking about that: it took thousand of years for a comet to hit a buffalo, then how long do you expect it to eventually hit a tiny teeny little ant? Even assuming that some comets did happen to strike Earth for a very bad luck, as we all know that a comet is even much smaller than Earth, how many incoming comets it would have taken to get zillions of gallons of water to fill all the oceans? We don't know, and the writer didn't give the data either. Although it's almost impossible to count every comet impact in the history of Earth, at least the odds of this kind of incidence could help us estimate and evaluate the arguer's point.

Secondly, even assuming that comet was a family friend of Earth who often dropped by(O my God! Leave us Alone!), the writer still fails to convince us that the water in the striking comets did go into the atmosphere and surface of Earth. The effect of comet-Earth impact then was unknown. Was the heat created by the collision high enough to melt the comet? Is there any chance that those comets penetrated the Earth surface, got buried deep underneath the ground and never entered the ocean system? The latter possibility is available, since even the writer himself/herself admitted that the surface of earth of those times might be "cooled". Besides I can't help noticing that the writer used two "would have"s in his statement about the water generation of comet impacts, revealing his own lack of evidences and confidence to prove such theories.

Finally, we have no reason to rule out other possibilities of the water existence on Earth. Common sense tells us that chemical reactions could generate water. The two elements forming water is hydrogen and oxygen, which are both among the most popular elements in the universe and, of course, our planet. Considering the very unstable and vastly changing condition on Earth, this kind of chemical reactions were pretty likely to happen. In the argument above the author also admits that there was water on those space rocks colliding to form Earth. Then where did those water come from? Comet again? Come on! He's just a shy occasional visitor emerging once a couple of centuries, not a crazy water balloon flying everywhere. If it's not the comets that brought water to all those space rocks, whatever the real reason is, it's definitely against the author's opinion in this case.

To sum up, the longer the history is, the more uncertainty it may present. There were thousands of ways to produce water other than the comet's contribution in the billions of years' Earth history. Until all of those ways have been proved impossible, and serious scientific investigations have been made to prove the author's assumption about the hitting effect and hitting frequency of comets on Earth, I'm afraid that the publisher would keep returning back this draft of textbook.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-14 at 10:51 ]

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

Basically, the author of this manuscript draws his conclusion on the following hypotheses: Earth must have been stricken before by comets which contained the amount of water as much as that in today's earthly oceans; Earth could retain the water of striking comets in the atmosphere and on the surface; Comet is the only possible source of water supply in the history of Earth. Although he made[makes] very specific explanation and analysis for it, either his conclusion or the whole reasoning process to reach it still seems unacceptable to me.

Firstly, is it a certain thing that Earth has ever been stricken by comets? The collision of comets and planets does not happen every day, the odds of which is actually very low, especially considering that Earth is a relatively small planet among its brothers and sisters. It's well known that in the late 1990's a comet knocked into Jupiter, the biggest planet among all the ones in the Solar System, which was the only comet-planet collision incidence observed in the human history. Comparing our Earth with tremendous Jupiter, it's like an ant versus a buffalo. Thinking about that: it took thousand [thoudsands] of years for a comet to hit a buffalo, then how long do you expect it to eventually hit a tiny teeny little ant? Even assuming that some comets did happen to strike Earth for a very bad luck, as we all know that a comet is even much smaller than Earth, how many incoming comets it would have taken to get zillions of gallons of water to fill all the oceans? We don't know, and the writer didn't give the data either. Although it's almost impossible to count every comet impact in the history of Earth, at least the odds of this kind of incidence could help us estimate and evaluate the arguer's point.[这个例证我很支持，考虑到了水量的多少和撞击的次数的可能性，但是Firstly, is it a certain thing that Earth has ever been stricken by comets?是不是应该换一下？如果是这样一个Topic sentence 的话，作者主要应该看的是是否真的有彗星撞地球而不是几率很低，数量和含水量可能不够，个人理解，不一定正确，大大看着办吧]

Secondly, even assuming that comet was a family friend of Earth who often dropped by(O my God! Leave us Alone!),[很可爱，但是不知道ETS这种比较严肃的机构欣不欣赏，笑] the writer still fails to convince us that the water in the striking comets did go into the atmosphere and surface of Earth. The effect of comet-Earth impact then was[is] unknown. Was the heat created by the collision high enough to melt the comet? Is there any chance that those comets penetrated the Earth surface, got buried deep underneath the ground and never entered the ocean system? [这两句问话时态应该一致，但是作为现在的人对过去的假设，是过去时还是现在时我也把握不准，大大如果有这方面的资料或理解请告诉我，谢谢]The latter possibility is available, since even the writer himself/herself admitted that the surface of earth of those times might be "cooled". Besides I can't help noticing that the writer used two "would have"s in his statement about the water generation of comet impacts, revealing his own lack of evidences and confidence to prove such theories. [这个would have问题我没想到，赞！]

Finally, we have no reason to rule out other possibilities of the water existence on Earth. Common sense tells us that chemical reactions could generate water. The two elements forming water is hydrogen and oxygen, which are both among the most popular elements in the universe and, of course, our planet. Considering the very unstable and vastly changing condition on Earth, this kind of chemical reactions were pretty likely to happen. In the argument above the author also admits that there was water on those space rocks colliding to form Earth. Then where did those water come from? Comet again? Come on! He's [It is]just a shy occasional visitor emerging once a couple of centuries, not a crazy water balloon flying everywhere. If it's not the comets that brought water to all those space rocks, whatever the real reason is, it's definitely against the author's opinion in this case.

To sum up, the longer the history is, the more uncertainty it may present. There were thousands of ways to produce water other than the comet's contribution in the billions of years' Earth history. Until all of those ways have been proved impossible, and serious scientific investigations have been made to prove the author's assumption about the hitting effect and hitting frequency of comets on Earth, I'm afraid that the publisher would keep returning back this draft of textbook.[结尾很好，很新颖活泼]


大大，这是我的Argument50同主题，也请你帮我拍一下吧：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=299414

hihifrankyUID: 2115524

Originally posted by edgarlu at 2005-7-14 08:34 AM
Firstly, is it a certain thing that Earth has ever been stricken by comets? The collision of comets and planets does not happen every day, the odds of which is actually very low,

【这个我不太苟同，的确是有很多comets(buddy ice ball) 撞在地球上，而且每天都有，只是这些ball 很小，一般我们察觉不到，如果这样的话，这段的论点就不太站得住脚了】

Is there any chance that those comets penetrated the Earth surface, got buried deep underneath the ground and never entered the ocean system?

【既然comet 是ice ball，怎么可能象陨石一样？如果真的撞到地底了，肯定会已地下水或被植物吸收的形式进入水循环中。更何况ice ball 在穿过大气层时，部分ice已经变为小水珠或水蒸汽而进入大气了。这些都可以enter the ocean system。】

The two elements forming water is hydrogen and oxygen, which are both among the most popular elements in the universe and, of course, our planet.

【氧气在宇宙中的含量很多？而氢气在大气中也只占不到1％啊。】

He's just a shy occasional visitor emerging once a couple of centuries,

【不一定吧】

觉得作者在argue时不要说的太绝对了，这样的话反而觉得没说服力。
其实我也不是很懂，说错了请原谅哦

edgarluUID: 203648

这个例证我很支持，考虑到了水量的多少和撞击的次数的可能性，但是Firstly, is it a certain thing that Earth has ever been stricken by comets?是不是应该换一下？如果是这样一个Topic sentence 的话，作者主要应该看的是是否真的有彗星撞地球而不是几率很低，数量和含水量可能不够，个人理解，不一定正确，大大看着办吧

没错没错，当初构思时是开头把所有问题都提出来，整个作为top sentense的
结果昨天写完开头就晕烟，给忘了

谢拍，回拍中

edgarluUID: 203648

【这个我不太苟同，的确是有很多comets(buddy ice ball) 撞在地球上，而且每天都有，只是这些ball 很小，一般我们察觉不到，如果这样的话，这段的论点就不太站得住脚了】

comet的概念应该是不包括这些小型的ice ball的，我也没有查过严格的定义，不过看过discovery关于彗星的片子好像没有谈到过这种规模的彗星

【既然comet 是ice ball，怎么可能象陨石一样？如果真的撞到地底了，肯定会已地下水或被植物吸收的形式进入水循环中。更何况ice ball 在穿过大气层时，部分ice已经变为小水珠或水蒸汽而进入大气了。这些都可以enter the ocean system。】

这个要延伸看去说范围就大了
iceball也有可能是密度很大的iceball，密度大的结晶体未必没有陨石脑袋硬
地壳结构很复杂，未必没有挖地三千长丈没有地下水的贫瘠地区
至于穿过大气这倒是没想到
这句话可能确实是有点无根据假设的意思，不过我用的是is there any chance that ...?
也没有把话说死

【氧气在宇宙中的含量很多？而氢气在大气中也只占不到1％啊。】

氢气是没有，但是氢元素有很多哦，比如说氨 NH3

关于shy occasional visitor那就取决于前面关于comet的概念了
如果算上很多小ice ball，那就不算了，如果指哈雷和苏梅等级的，它们每一个都是几十几百年show一次

说话不能太绝对，这倒是值得深思的
这话我赞成，其实我文中很多地方涉及驳斥和假设也用了很多possible,possibility is available,Is there any chance,likely to,I'm afraid that表示委婉的地方
不过如果难得碰到类似于If it's not the comets that brought water to all those space rocks, whatever the real reason is, it's definitely against the author's opinion in this case.这样逻辑上非这即那的情况，一锤子打死比留个活口强啊，您说呢？

多谢狠拍，不知可有让我回拍的机会，多拍拍多想想效果比抽烟强多了

hihifrankyUID: 2115524

好啊，谢谢指教

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=300073

edgarluUID: 203648

Originally posted by hihifranky at 2005-7-14 20:58
好啊，谢谢指教

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=300073

以回拍了issue6那篇
这篇明天拍回

附上新作地址：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D101

alcestisUID: 2101945

It's well known that in the late 1990's a comet knocked into Jupiter, the biggest planet among all the ones in the Solar System, which was the only comet-planet collision incidence observed in the human history.

真的是唯一一次?我当时也想举这个例子不过不确定

赞 楼主的文！