Argument50 <米国有米小组1月30日作业>

aefiterUID: 2134740

TOPIC: 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."


This argument concludes that ocean water on the earth came from comets hit on the earth after earth has formed the size as it is today. To arrive at this conclusion, this argument accordingly rules out another possible circumstance that may explain the origin of earth water: that water come from space rocks. As the argument does provide compelling reasoning to support its viewpoint, it simplifies the complexity of the formation of earth. Moreover, we should not restrict the water origin into two possibilities mentioned in this argument. The two major flaws render this argument unconvincing.

The description of the formation of earth may simplify that process, and this simplification makes the reasoning that water cannot be retained at that period flawless. Nevertheless, the process may not be that simple as is depicted in this argument. We do not know how long the formation of the earth, i.e., the time span between the beginnings of collision of rocks to the time when earth’s volume reached today’s size, have last. As a result, the assertion that gravitational force will not be strong enough to attract water molecules into earth is imprudent. For instance, when earth's volume or mass reached the size large enough to attract water molecules to earth's atmospheres, it's size was far from its size of today, later collision will bring enough amount of water to earth that will be able to stay in the atmosphere rather than go off into space. This argument imprudently neglects the details of the formation of earth, and reaches a false conclusion.

In addition, the suggestion that comet is the major source of earth water is specious. Firstly, the arguer cannot provide specific number of comet collisions after earth formation. If number of collisions of earth with comets were not large enough to account for existent amount of water on earth, the conclusion that comets provide water on earth is unconvincing. Could this be true, we must still seek other explanations that could explain the origin of huge amount of water on earth.

Finally, the arguer's conclusion is rest completely on ruling out the explanation by space rocks collision. This line of reasoning inevitably assumes that only two explanations are available for the solution of water origin myth on earth. However, this assumption is groundless in this argument. Without further information, we can imagine other ways, such as large-scale collision between original earth with other planets, which contained large amount of water provide nowadays huge amount of water on earth. As the arguer has not ruled out these similar explanations, we cannot accept the assumption of this argument.

To sum up, to limit the explanation of earth water origin into two ways is unfounded in the argument. Moreover, the reasoning to invalidate the space rock explanation is not persuasive. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more details that help him restrict the explanation into only two; the arguer should also add more details that he uses to rule out the space rock explanation.

blackswitchUID: 2110679

This argument concludes that ocean water on the earth came from comets hit on the earth after earth has formed the size as it is today. To arrive at this conclusion, this argument accordingly rules out another possible circumstance that may explain the origin of earth water: that water come from space rocks. [这个意思不是很能理解]As the argument does provide compelling reasoning to support its viewpoint, it simplifies the complexity of the formation of earth. Moreover, we should not restrict the water origin into two possibilities mentioned in this argument. [这样的开头我很喜欢，把全文的TS说出来了]The two major flaws render this argument unconvincing.

The description of the formation of earth may simplify that process, and this simplification makes the reasoning that water cannot be retained at that period flawless. Nevertheless, the process may not be that simple as is depicted in this argument. We do not know how long the formation of the earth, i.e., the time span between the beginnings of collision of rocks to the time when earth’s volume reached today’s size, have last. As a result, the assertion that gravitational force will not be strong enough to attract water molecules into earth is imprudent. For instance, when earth's volume or mass reached the size large enough to attract water molecules to earth's atmospheres, it's size was far from its size of today, later collision will bring enough amount of water to earth that will be able to stay in the atmosphere rather than go off into space.[这句话没有看懂？] This argument imprudently neglects the details of the formation of earth, and reaches a false conclusion.

In addition, the suggestion that comet is the major source of earth water is specious. Firstly, the arguer cannot provide specific number of comet collisions after earth formation. If number of collisions of earth with comets were not large enough to account for existent amount of water on earth, the conclusion that comets provide water on earth is unconvincing. [这个理由好，我怎么没有想到]Could this be true, we must still seek other explanations that could explain the origin of huge amount of water on earth.

Finally, the arguer's conclusion is rest completely on ruling out the explanation by space rocks collision. This line of reasoning inevitably assumes that only two explanations are available for the solution of water origin myth on earth. However, this assumption is groundless in this argument. Without further information, we can imagine other ways, such as large-scale collision between original earth with other planets, which contained large amount of water provide nowadays huge amount of water on earth. As the arguer has not ruled out these similar explanations, we cannot accept the assumption of this argument.[ 从这里可以看到作者对题目的理解是，因为地球上在形成时没有水，所以来源于彗星，如果这样的话 ，在开头第一段能够更加说清楚作者的这个逻辑关系就更好了。主要是我和你的理解不一样，所以开始还没有看明白 ]

To sum up, to limit the explanation of earth water origin into two ways is unfounded in the argument. Moreover, the reasoning to invalidate the space rock explanation is not persuasive. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more details that help him restrict the explanation into only two; the arguer should also add more details that he uses to rule out the space rock explanation.
[写的很好，特别是在论证的时候体现出了很强的逻辑关系，虽然这篇文章不好写，但作者在论证所体现的逻辑让人很信服]