Argument50 [Victors小组]第七次作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

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."

1,没有提供彗星撞地球的证据。
2，还有其他原因导致水的存在

447字，我真的是写不出来了。。。
While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--mainly in two respects.

First of all, the author failed to provide evidences to support the premise that comet collided earth in the condition that earth's gravitation was strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere and the surface of earth was cool and solid. It is equally possible that the collision between comet and earth has never happened. If so, then the conclusion drawn from a comet striking Earth is merely ungrounded. Or perhaps there were collisions between comet and earth, yet they happened before the planet approached its current size. In that case, the water vaporized from comet would have evaporated and gone off into space as mentioned in the above argument. In short, without demonstrating the evidences on the fact that comet has stricken Earth and ruling out the possibility that this kind of collision was a incidence before the planet's gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere, the author cannot make a convincing case that comet collision contributes to the water in Earth's oceans. To support his or her conclusion, the author is supposed to carry out some researches and furnish some more warranted evidences.

Secondly, even if comets are related to the reason of the water in Earth's oceans, the argument relies on the additional assumption that no other fact affects the formation of water on Earth. However, it is entirely possible that alternative reasons lead to the existence of water. For example, water may be the byproduct of planet formation whose birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. The water is probably quickly produced in this warm dense gas. Or perhaps other complicated chemical reactions also contribute to the origin or water in ocean. Either of these scenarios, if true, will seriously undermine the allegation in this argument. The author's conclusion that the oceans--which contain 97.2% of Earth's water that covers 71% of the Earth's surface--are merely the reason of comet collisions is dubious at best. To consolidate the allegation in the above argument, the author should consider the possibilities other than comet collisions and find the facts to rule out these alternative reasons.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary researches.

jennetrjUID: 2275453

While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--mainly in two respects.[ 开头段的方法新颖，我喜欢！]

First of all, the author failed to provide evidences to support the premise that comet collided earth in the condition that earth's gravitation was strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere and the surface of earth was [then] cool[ed] and solid[solid可以这样用吗？]. It is equally possible that the collision between comet and earth has never happened. If so, then the conclusion drawn from a comet striking Earth is merely ungrounded. Or perhaps there were collisions between comet and earth, yet they happened before the planet approached its current size. In that case, the water vaporized from comet would have evaporated and gone off into space as mentioned in the above argument. In short, without demonstrating the evidences on the fact that comet has stricken Earth and ruling out the possibility that this kind of collision was a incidence before the planet's gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere, the author cannot make a convincing case that comet collision contributes to the water in Earth's oceans. To support his or her conclusion, the author is supposed to carry out some researches and furnish some more warranted evidences. [指出彗星撞地球的证据不足，或者撞地球时，地球不足以捕获彗星所含的水分。但这似乎是命题中对一些事实的叙述，是否可以作为逻辑攻击的对象，我自己也觉得拿不准，LZ的意见呢？]

Secondly, even if comets are related to the reason of the water in Earth's oceans, the argument relies on the additional assumption that no other fact affects the formation of water on Earth. However, it is entirely possible that alternative reasons lead to the existence of water. For example, water may be the byproduct of planet formation whose birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. The water is probably quickly produced in this warm dense gas. Or perhaps other complicated chemical reactions also contribute to the origin or water in ocean. Either of these scenarios, if true, will seriously undermine the allegation in this argument. The author's conclusion that the oceans--which contain 97.2% of Earth's water that covers 71% of the Earth's surface--are merely the reason of comet collisions is dubious at best. To consolidate the allegation in the above argument, the author should consider the possibilities other than comet collisions and find the facts to rule out these alternative reasons.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary researches.

建议可以从水的来源、去向、转化三个角度陈述其间的逻辑因果不能对应的情况。