argument50 565words，看似涉及很多专业知识，其实不用啦，仅从逻辑上就可以

echostateUID: 194935

我觉得很多时候不用去考虑专业和背景。比如，题目中出现一个“would”，好，必是一个错误因果，或者错误假设。单纯从逻辑上考虑，这样看到了这样看似很bt的题，其实也没什么。（其实我写的不好，只是一个想法）


Here the speaker concludes that the Earth's oceans must derive from comets from the cosmos.To support this conclusion, the speaker firstly cites the fact that any water presented in the Earth as it war being formed out will inevitably evaporated because the great heat of the time that time. Then he or she claims that as the gravitation of the Earth is large enough to retain the evaporated water as the atmosphere, and eventually this water will falling as rain back to out planet. In fact, this argument suffers from problematic reasoning and a lack of solid evidence, which renders it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the speaker seems to assume that there exists so great heat that it is able to evaporate the water from comets after the earth's gravitation become strong enough to hold the evaporated water and gases as a atmosphere. The mere evidence the speaker offered, with the purpose of substantiating the assumption above, is that the heat as Earth war being formed out war able to make entire planet molten. However, this evidence is far from persuasive. Without evidence to the contrary, it is rather possible that the earth had lost its considerable heat after it is large enough to form the needed gravitation. Moreover, common sense tells us that our planet is not as hot as what it was at the beginning of its formation. In short, without solid evidence that the Earth had enough heat to evaporate the water in its surface at the proper time, that is after the earth has sufficient gravitational energy, we can not accept the speaker's assertion that the water will evaporated when it arrived at the surface of the planet.

Furthermore, the argument provides no information to support that the number of comets is large enough to produce the Earth's oceans, or the evidence that the water in these comets is enough and suitable. As a matter of fact, there exist quite a few plausible scenarios which can undermine this argument. For instance, it is likely that the number of comets, even providing that all the comets are merely composed of water, is not sufficient enough to form the world's oceans. Also, we know nothing about the property of the water in these comets and it is equally probable that further chemical experiments, such as isotope analysis, will reveal that the water in these comets are entirely different with that in our oceans. To better convince us about the conclusion of this argument, the speaker should present some more information about this.

Finally, even granted the speaker furnishes solid evidence that the comets that stroked Earth are able to form the Earth's oceans, it is presumptuous to justify that this must be the case. In reality, the speaker fails to notice or selects to ignore quite a number of other possible alternatives which can explain the source of the Earth's oceans. Perhaps the Earth itself had enough water to form all the oceans just after its birth. Or perhaps the water war created by some other chemical reaction rather than the rain from atmosphere. In either case, the author can not safely draw the conclusion that the formation of oceans come from the comets.

In last analysis, a convincing argument must cast aside quite a few logical possibilities that can undermine its basis. The speaker fails to do this.

[ Last edited by echostate on 2005-7-20 at 17:37 ]

echostateUID: 194935

大家觉得是新东方那种开头结尾（比如我的开头）好。
还是简洁型的（比如我的结尾）好呢？

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Here the speaker concludes that thewater in Earth's oceans must derive from comets from the cosmos.To support this conclusion, the speaker firstly cites the fact that any water presented in the Earth as it war wasbeing formed out will inevitably evaporated because the great heat of the time??? that time. Then he or shethe speaker claims that as the gravitation of the Earth is large enough to retain the evaporated water as the atmosphere, and eventually this waterthe water vapor will fallingfall as rain back to outour planet. In fact, however?this argument suffers from problematic reasoning and a lack of solid evidence, which renders it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the speaker seems to assume that there exists so great heat that it is able to evaporate the water from comets after the earth's gravitation become becamestrong enough to hold the evaporated water and gases? 去掉gases，和前面是一个意思 as a atmosphere. The mere evidence the speaker offeredoffers, with the purpose of substantiating the assumption above, is that the heat as Earth war这好像是德语“是”的过去式:P being formed out waribid able to make entire planet molten. However, this evidence is far from persuasive. Without evidence to the contrary, it is rather possible that the earth had lost its considerable heat after it is large enough to form the needed gravitation. Moreover, common sense tells us that our planet is not as hot as what it was at the beginning of its formation. In short, without solid evidence that the Earth had enough heat to evaporate the water in its surface at the proper time, that whichis after the earth hashad sufficient gravitational energy, we can not accept the speaker's assertion that the water will evaporated dwhen it arrived at the surface of the planet.如果你是说地球原来的水【不是彗星的】不会完全蒸发掉，因为假设在碰撞瞬间地球就形成了足够的重力来留住这些蒸气，因而海洋水可能是地球自身就有的，那我觉得这一点很好；如果你说的是彗星碰撞时，地球已经降温了，所以彗星水不会蒸发，那么你还要进一步的解释，不蒸发就不能形成海洋了么？完全可以当时是冰，而后来随着地球升温而变成了水。我的同主题被网友指出了类似的问题。我的处理是：可能当时是冰，并且后来都留在南极大陆和高山了，从而和海洋没有直接的关系。（海水另有来源）

Furthermore, the argument provides no information to support that the number of comets is large enough to produce the Earth's oceans, or the evidence that the water in these comets is enough and suitable. As a matter of fact, there exist quite a few plausible scenarios which can undermine this argument. For instance, it is likely that the number of comets, even providing that all the comets are merely composed of water, 这就不叫彗星了吧。对彗星的定义还是说有慧核什么的，而慧核有什么物质。is not sufficient enough to form the world's oceans. Also, we know nothing about the property of the water in these comets and it is equally probable that further chemical experiments, such as isotope analysis, will reveal that the water in these comets are isentirely different with that in our oceans. To better convince us about the conclusion of this argument, the speaker should present some more information about this.我在写这篇时怀疑过这一点。彗星水可能和海水成分差很多，但只要它有冰，会在地表化成溶液，然后又蒸发，基本就像蒸馏水那样把杂质去了很多了吧？供讨论

Finally, even grantedthat the speaker furnishes solid evidence that the comets that stroked Earth arewere able to form the Earth's oceansoceans就行了。, it is presumptuous to justify that this must be the case. In reality, the speaker fails to notice or selects?ignore本身包含了主观忽略的意思，不用select了。 to ignore quite a number of other possible alternatives which can explain the source of the Earth's oceans. Perhaps the Earth itself had enough water to form all the oceans just after its birth. 那么你就要反驳作者的另一论述，即在形成初期因为巨大的热量把水都蒸发掉了Or perhaps the water war全文都用错了…… createdgenerated by some other chemical reactiongood point! rather than the rain from atmosphere. In either case, the author can not cannot safely draw the conclusion that the formationwater of oceans come from the comets.

In last analysis, a convincing argument must cast aside quite a few logical possibilities that can undermine its basis. The speaker fails to do this.


[ Last edited by tangjihede on 2005-7-20 at 19:08 ]

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

我记得看过一个帖子，说开头简单点儿好，不需要太多的restate。所以我觉得，开头简单，直入主题，最后有时间，可以在结尾重新总结一下，让别人看得更明白更舒服。

echostateUID: 194935

确实对哦，不能蒸发好像照样可以形成海洋
或者说更容易形成海洋，都不用降雨那一步了~~

^_^
我也发现我打的都是“war”
不会骨子里是战争狂吧~~~

[ Last edited by echostate on 2005-7-20 at 19:19 ]

echostateUID: 194935

^_^
看来我的开头结尾都不好~~~~~
颠倒黑白了~

echostateUID: 194935

对于彗星水和地球水不同的那个。
你提出了也许是蒸留作用净化了杂志，嗯，想的确实很远。
我是没想到的。不过我撞大运，觉得例子是同位素的例子：）
这个怎么蒸留也不行啊：）

echostateUID: 194935

呜呜，我觉得这篇我最失败的是最后那里，说“有可能是地球本来就有水”那里。^_^完全不顾题目上说全蒸发掉了~~~

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

你提同位素我就晕了……
btw，以前讨论的骨头和金属那道题，网友提出migrate的确不是移民（在别地定居）的意思，所以我提的打猎、战争来反驳migration是不成立的，不好意思。。。

skaterUID: 2116878

Originally posted by tangjihede at 2005-7-20 19:11
我记得看过一个帖子，说开头简单点儿好，不需要太多的restate。所以我觉得，开头简单，直入主题，最后有时间，可以在结尾重新总结一下，让别人看得更明白更舒服。

呵呵你也学习我的作风啦？

echostateUID: 194935

Originally posted by skater at 2005-7-21 20:29

呵呵你也学习我的作风啦？

嘿嘿，高人出现了~~~^O^
不过我确实觉得开头结尾都应该简单点！
本来就只有30分钟吗
把开头结尾的时间留出来，将错误驳斥得更好点，我觉得对得分更有帮助！

准备的再熟，敲那么长一个开头也得要点时间吧！