argument50 G-89-互助社-8.8日同主题作文！欢迎互拍！

polymathUID: 179557

50.From a draft textbook manuscript submitted to a publisher. （one hour）

"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."

当地球在太空岩石的撞击作用下形成的时候，撞击产生的热量和行星越来越大的重力能量使整个行星融化，甚至包括表面。当时存在的任何水分都会蒸发并消失在太空。然而，当行星接近现在的大小的时候，它的重力强到了足以保持其周围的气体和水蒸气来形成大气层。由于彗星主要是由冻结的水和气体组成的冰，撞击地球的彗星将会蒸发。产生的水蒸气将被留在大气层，最终以降雨的形式落在地球已冷却而且坚硬的表面。因此，地球海洋的水分一定是来自彗星。

In the manuscipt,the author concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets.To support this conclusion the author points out that Earth’s gravitation and the heat from those collisions made the entire comet molten and vaporize;The author further assumes that the resulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere, eventually falling as rain on the surface of Earth.Close scrutiny reveals, however, the argument is unconvincing owing to several fallacies.

First and formost, the author assumes that any water present from those collisions would have exclusively evaporated and gone off into space.In lacking of evidence such as scientific experimental simulation,the arguer overlooks the possibility that those water might have been changed into other compounds after the entire planet was molten, and these compounds eventually transferred back into water when the earth became the initial form of the current size.

Second,the author’s assumption that only after Earth approached its current size could gases and water vapor be held by the gravity shows that it is of essential importance for  those collisions by comets to meet the premise. However, no evidence shows there have been comets striked the earth after Earth’s gravitation became strong emough to hold water vapor around it. So, if all the comets just collided Earth before the latter approached its current size, then no water vapor or gases would have the opportunity of being transported to the earth, no need to say the contribution of forming the earth's oceans.

Finally, the arguer obviously made a hasty generation without further analysis of other elements concerned. It is known to us all that about 70 percent of the surface of Earth is covered by water while a comet is relatively smaller compared with Earth, so we have ample reasons to doubt: can comets actually be able to provide enough water to constitute the oceans on Earth? Common sense tells me this is not a necessary case. Perhaps other planets contained larger amount of water resources once striked Earth and left water on the surface of Earth; or perhaps the water in Earth's oceans mainly have come into being through chemical reactions rather than physical transformation through collisions by some space objects. Without ruling out these and other alternative possibilities, the author cannot justify the conclusion.

In conclusion, to peruade me that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets, the author must supply clear evidence that comets in fact striked the earth and the resulting water vapor were responsible for forming Earth's oceans.To further strengthen the argument, the author also should have ruled out other possible explanations for the source of Earth's oceans. (435)

大家都来拍拍看！:)

[ Last edited by polymath on 2005-8-8 at 16:35 ]

iamfeatherUID: 202850

re
我也写得这一篇

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

[ Last edited by iamfeather on 2005-8-8 at 17:38 ]

iamfeatherUID: 202850

argument50 G-89-互助社-8.8日同主题作文！欢迎互拍！

50.From a draft textbook manuscript submitted to a publisher. （one hour）

"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."

当地球在太空岩石的撞击作用下形成的时候，撞击产生的热量和行星越来越大的重力能量使整个行星融化，甚至包括表面。当时存在的任何水分都会蒸发并消失在太空。然而，当行星接近现在的大小的时候，它的重力强到了足以保持其周围的气体和水蒸气来形成大气层。由于彗星主要是由冻结的水和气体组成的冰，撞击地球的彗星将会蒸发。产生的水蒸气将被留在大气层，最终以降雨的形式落在地球已冷却而且坚硬的表面。因此，地球海洋的水分一定是来自彗星。

In the manuscipt,the author concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets.To support this conclusion the author points out that Earth’s gravitation and the heat from those collisions made the entire comet molten and vaporize;The author further assumes that the resulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere, eventually falling as rain on the surface of Earth.对于全文的restate可以再简单些，只用几个词组就可以了，节约时间Close scrutiny reveals, however, the argument is unconvincing owing to several fallacies.

First and formost, the author assumes that any water present from好词 those collisions would have exclusively evaporated and gone off into space.In lacking of evidence such as scientific experimental simulation,the arguer overlooks the possibility that those water might have been changed into other compounds after the entire planet was molten, and these compounds eventually transferred back into water when the earth became the initial form of the current size. 我觉得每个错误最好都与推不出结论挂钩，或者是推出结论的一个分论点，而这一段你说作者错误假设水都蒸发了，与论点差的比较远，或者你没有指出它与推不出论点有什么关系，还有段末最好有总结

Second,the author’s assumption that only after Earth approached its current size could gases and water vapor be held by the gravity shows that it is of essential importance for  those collisions by comets to meet the premise. However, no evidence shows there have been comets striked the earth after Earth’s gravitation became strong emough to hold water vapor around it. So, if all the comets just collided Earth before the latter approached its current size, then no water vapor or gases would have the opportunity of being transported to the earth, no need to say the contribution of to forming the earth's oceans.总结，觉得论证不是特别充分，但是我也想不到更好的了:L

Finally, the arguer obviously made a hasty generation without further analysis of other elements concerned.开头指出错误，嗯~ It is known to us all that about 70 percent of the surface of Earth is covered by water while a comet is relatively smaller compared with Earth, so we have ample reasons to doubt: can comets actually be able to provide enough water to constitute the oceans on Earth?问句，好 Common sense tells me this is not a necessary case. Perhaps other planets contained larger amount of water resources once striked Earth and left water on the surface of Earth; or perhaps the water in Earth's oceans mainly have come into being through chemical reactions rather than physical transformation through collisions by some space objects. Without ruling out these and other alternative possibilities, the author cannot justify the conclusion.这一段论证的好，比较充分。

In conclusion,第一句先说，这篇文章论证的不好，然后再说怎么改善 to peruade me that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets, the author must supply clear evidence that comets in fact striked the earth and the resulting water vapor were responsible for forming Earth's oceans.To further strengthen the argument, the author also should have ruled out other possible explanations for the source of Earth's oceans. (435)


我觉得这篇比较难写，我写的时候超时很久，主要是对这些方面不熟悉，想不到太多可能，楼主写的不错了，尤其是第三段论证的很好

[ Last edited by iamfeather on 2005-8-8 at 17:36 ]

polymathUID: 179557

首先感谢你的修改和建议！:)
一会答复你！;)

flfengUID: 2111823

50.From a draft textbook manuscript submitted to a publisher. （one hour）

"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."
当地球在太空岩石的撞击作用下形成的时候，撞击产生的热量和行星越来越大的重力能量使整个行星融化，甚至包括表面。当时存在的任何水分都会蒸发并消失在太空。然而，当行星接近现在的大小的时候，它的重力强到了足以保持其周围的气体和水蒸气来形成大气层。由于彗星主要是由冻结的水和气体组成的冰，撞击地球的彗星将会蒸发。产生的水蒸气将被留在大气层，最终以降雨的形式落在地球已冷却而且坚硬的表面。因此，地球海洋的水分一定是来自彗星。

这里最主要的错误应该时最后的一个推理，你在最后写道了， 不过可以放在更先要的位置上面。其他的错误主要是开始的论述没有确实的证据， 这一点可以写成一段，这样比较集中，力量也比较大。对于水的多少也可以写一下。有了这几点就很完善了。

你的文章还行，不用太担心的，尽快定格吧，阿入股门徒 没有必要写很多，定格下来就好了。

这一片我写过，觉得还行，你可以参考一下。

In the manuscipt,the author concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets.To support this conclusion the author points out that Earth’s gravitation and the heat from those collisions made the entire comet molten and vaporize;The author further assumes that the resulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere, eventually falling as rain on the surface of Earth.Close scrutiny reveals, however, the argument is unconvincing owing to several fallacies.

First and formost, the author assumes that any water present from those collisions would have exclusively evaporated and gone off into space.In lacking of evidence such as scientific experimental simulation,the arguer overlooks the possibility that those water might have been changed into other compounds after the entire planet was molten, and these compounds eventually transferred back into water when the earth became the initial form of the current size.
这个只是一个很小的错误，没有必要直接写在开头。实际上这个错误不写都可以。



Second,the author’s assumption that only after Earth approached its current size could gases and water vapor be held by the gravity shows that it is of essential importance for  those collisions by comets to meet the premise. However, no evidence shows there have been comets striked the earth after Earth’s gravitation became strong emough to hold water vapor around it. So, if all the comets just collided Earth before the latter approached its current size, then no water vapor or gases would have the opportunity of being transported to the earth, no need to say the contribution of forming the earth's oceans.


Finally, the arguer obviously made a hasty generation without further analysis of other elements concerned. It is known to us all that about 70 percent of the surface of Earth is covered by water while a comet is relatively smaller compared with Earth, so we have ample reasons to doubt: can comets actually be able to provide enough water to constitute the oceans on Earth? Common sense tells me this is not a necessary case. Perhaps other planets contained larger amount of water resources once striked Earth and left water on the surface of Earth; or perhaps the water in Earth's oceans mainly have come into being through chemical reactions rather than physical transformation through collisions by some space objects. Without ruling out these and other alternative possibilities, the author cannot justify the conclusion.

In conclusion, to peruade me that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets, the author must supply clear evidence that comets in fact striked the earth and the resulting water vapor were responsible for forming Earth's oceans.To further strengthen the argument, the author also should have ruled out other possible explanations for the source of Earth's oceans. (435)