Agument50 [Victors小组]第七次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

50From 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."
提纲：1作者未提供有力证据证明确实曾经有彗星撞击地球。
      2作者未能排除其他可能的原因。
In this argument, the arguer points out that the heat from the collisions of space rock forming out of Earth and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface , thus any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space, however, once the planet approached its current size, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere. In addition, the arguer notes that comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, a comet striking Earth then would have vaporized. On that basis he or she concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. In my view, the argument suffers from a series of logical flaws, which makes it unconvincing.

On the one hand, the arguer unfairly assumes that there were myriad comets running into the earth. If a comet crashed to the earth, there must be a series of phenomena such as a sudden bright flash of light, a loud boom, a significant change of the earth’s crust etc.  It is possible for those phenomena to be recorded in the earth’s crust or other place, in that they can serve as the proof that there were quantities of comets knocking the earth. Unfortunately the arguer fails to provide any reliable evidence to bolster his or her conclusion, so he or she can not make me take seriously his or her conclusion.

On the other hand, the arguer fails to take other prospective origination of the water on the earth. As the following examples show there are lots of factors might have created the water on the earth. For example, maybe there are a large mount of ice mix with rocks which melted into water later. It is equally possible that when the earth came into being, the collision created a lot of hydrogen and oxygen, which created water via chemical reaction. It is equally possible that, solar wind brought along a large quantity of water vapor or hydrogen and oxygen to the earth. Either the forgoing scenario, if true, will make the arguer's conclusion insubstantial.

To sum up, the argument suffers a series of logical flaws, which makes it not so tenable as it stands. In order to strengthen it, the arguer should provide sufficient proof about the crash between the earth and a comet. Additionally, he or she must try to rule out other alternative origination of the water on the earth.

solartorchUID: 2244205

In this argument, the arguer points out that the heat from the collisions of space rock forming out of Earth and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface , thus any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space,前面这句太长啦，看不懂了都，建议缩，或者切成短句 however, once the planet approached its current size, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere. In addition, the arguer notes that comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, a comet striking Earth then would have vaporized. On that basis he or she concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. In my view, the argument suffers from a series of logical flaws, which makes it unconvincing. 第一段重复题目提出观点

On the one hand, the arguer unfairly assumes that there were myriad comets running into the earth. If a comet crashed to the earth, there must be a series of phenomena such as a sudden bright flash of light, a loud boom, a significant change of the earth’s crust etc.  It is possible for those phenomena to be recorded in the earth’s crust or other place,这个。。flash and boom不会留证据啊 in that they can serve as the proof that there were quantities of comets knocking the earth. Unfortunately the arguer fails to provide any reliable evidence to bolster his or her conclusion, so he or she can not make me take seriously his or her conclusion.这边用太多he or she了，可以考虑换换说法加以避免

On the other hand, the arguer fails to take other prospective origination 用复数?of the water on the earth. As the following examples show there are lots of factors might have created the water on the earth. For example, maybe there are a large mount of ice mix mixed with rocks which melted into water later. It is equally possible that when the earth came into being, the collision created a lot of hydrogen and oxygen, which created water via chemical reaction. It is also equally possible that, solar wind brought along a large quantity of water vapor or hydrogen and oxygen to the earth. Either the forgoing forgoing 这样用对么？scenario, if true, will make the arguer's conclusion insubstantial.

To sum up, the argument suffers a series of logical flaws, which makes it not so tenable as it stands. In order to strengthen it, the arguer should provide sufficient proof about the crash between the earth and a comet. Additionally, he or she must try to rule out other alternative origination of the water on the earth.最后总结

这道题不好写。。。楼主词汇量不错，如果能再斟酌一下句子的多样性就更好了。