Argument50 我的第一篇拍一篇回两篇 [复制链接]

hustzwj
UID：203387

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 9
寄托币: 2157
注册时间: 2005-3-30
精华: 0
帖子: 25

16楼

发表于 2005-7-20 20:34:17 |只看该作者

earth’s molten surface with such high temperature （你没有说明HIGH TEMPERATURE 跟你的论点以及作者的论点有什么关系，如果没关系，就范了ARGUMENT 文章固有的一类错误，叫错误定语及状语）as mentioned in the material by（THE） author.

我这里主要想说明存在另外一种可能:earth had water before! because of chemical reaction.------>但是这又要依赖条件"high temperature".同时,我认为这个条件(high temperature)是既定事实!
有待讨论!

使用道具举报

hustzwj
UID：203387

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 9
寄托币: 2157
注册时间: 2005-3-30
精华: 0
帖子: 25

17楼

发表于 2005-7-20 21:05:47 |只看该作者

The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfect theoretical physical model. However, after more consideration, I have found several flaws that make the speaker’s claim much unconvincing. The author takes it for granted that water did not exist before the crashing of the comets and earth’s condition stayed unchanged through long time!(算是第三个方面吧!:))
Firstly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy (保留经典^_^) that he does not explain whether the water had been existed before the comets' striking. It was much more possible that water was engendered from chemical reactions occurring on the earth’s molten surface with such high temperature(skater的意见有待讨论) as mentioned in the material by author. Besides, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between increasing gravitational energy of the planet and the molten of the planet, which is directly related to the rising of temperature on its surface把你的观点也加进来了,不算侵权吧!呵呵!. Further more, the water created before may gradually converged(我觉得也可以,不过还有一个: be concentrated) to large amount which later constitute the main part of water on earth. If it is true, the speaker’s claim that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet is unconvincing.
Secondly, even if there was not water existing before the comet’s striking, the author’s assertion that comets were the only source of water on the earth is still open to question. There is one important uncertain factor which may leads to the total fallacy of author’s assumption----whether the condition in favor of (完全可以:金山在此, To the advantage of:有利于：The court decided in favor of the plaintiff.法庭的判决有利于原告) the later vaporization of water resulting of the comet’s striking lasted for enough time. It is possible that after several thousand years, the earth’s condition changed drastically and the comets crashing onto earth were kept intact.
On the other hand, if assuming that the comets could have been vaporized, there is also another question that how about the volume or frequencies of such striking? Were they great enough to leave as much water as possible eventually leading to the formation of ocean? While the speaker tells nothing about this, his/her assertion pales when facing his/her own lacking of evidence.
In conclusion…………….

使用道具举报