argument50 【同主题第四期】欢迎互拍互拍

nornsUID：2325187

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."
WORDS: 516          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-7 18:59:04

In this argument, by giving series premises and assumptions, the author asserts that the water in the Earth's oceans is from comets. However, one premise is unwarranted and there are two major flaws in its reasoning, which hinder it from convincible.

  Firstly, the author's assertion is based on one premise that since before the earth reach its current size, the water would have evaporated; the water of ocean must due to something happened after that, which is not convincible. According to the background that the author gives, before the earth reach its current size, it is true that water would have gone off into the space. However, as the author further demonstrated the gravitation became stronger; so it is possible that these water that have gone out of the space is restricted again by the gravity and have come back into the atmosphere. Therefore, this part of water can be one reason of the forming of ocean.

Furthermore, even if we concede this premise is true, that vaporized water caused by comets does not necessarily indicate that it can form water. Firstly, would the vapor falling down? If, they stayed in the higher part of our atmosphere it may have no possibility to come into rain. Even if this is true, we know that leakage is possible for the falling water, so if all the water in the form of rain leaks into the inner part of our earth, there can be no ocean at all. So the author failed to prove that vapor can fall in the form of rain as well as water falling down can form sea.

  Even if this premise is true and that the comets is a cause of ocean, the author failed to rule out other possibilities.  The author only 'proved' that comets are one cause for ocean is reasonable. But no detailed evidence shows that other possibilities are impossible for the forming of ocean. Can not any other reasons also cause even a par of it? We might wonder. For example, there is a hypothesis that suggests water is from the inner part of the earth, for water can exist in the form of compound with some minerals. It is entirely possible that some water comes from the inner part of the earth. The author failed to prove that other hypothesis can not contribute a part to this matter.

In addition, the author failed to provide information of the existence of comets. In this hypothesis, the amount of these comets that containing water should be exactly equal to the amount of water containing in the sea. Is there any signs showing that such comets had once come to earth? Even if so, since the formation of other planets like Mars are quite the same of our earth, the comets are equal possibly to hit any other planets in solar system. Then why is the earth the only planets that containing water? The hypothesis can not explain this.

In sum, the author's conclusion is based on false premise and several reasoning flaws. To make it more convincible, he should provide further information showing that the comets are very likely to hit earth, and after series process it can lead to the formation of ocean while other possible ways can not.

woodmanUID：161906

In this argument, by givingseries premises and assumptions, the author asserts that the water in theEarth's oceans is from comets. However, one premise is unwarranted and thereare two major flaws in its reasoning, which hinder it from convincible.开头很漂亮，呵呵

Firstly, the author's assertionis based on one premise that since before the earth reach its current size, thewater would have evaporated; the water of ocean must due to something happenedafter that, which is not convincible. According to the background that theauthor gives, before the earth reach（reaches） its current size, it is true that (这个表达可以换一下，用来表达作者的观点看着别扭)water would have goneoff into the space. However, as the author further demonstrated （that）the gravitation becamestronger; so it is possible that these water that have gone out of the space isrestricted again by the gravity and have come back into the atmosphere.Therefore, this part of water can be one reason of the forming of ocean.

Furthermore, even if we concedethis premise is true, that vaporized water caused by comets does notnecessarily indicate that it can form water. Firstly, would the vapor fallingdown? If, they stayed in the higher part of ouratmosphere it may have no possibility to come into rain.（这个可不可以说的更有说服力一点？） Even if this is true,we know that leakage is possible for the falling water, so if all the water inthe form of rain leaks into the inner part of our earth, there can be no oceanat all.（这个渗漏估计规模超大了！） So the author failed to prove that vapor can fallin the form of rain as well as water falling down can form sea.这一段的两个可能都让我很意外，呵呵，不过确实不好找。要是我写，估计一个可能性也找不到。

Even if thispremise is true and that the comets is a cause of ocean（and前后重复了）, the author failed torule out other possibilities.  The author only 'proved' that comets are（were，时态要统一） one cause for oceanis reasonable. But no detailed evidence shows thatother possibilities are impossible for the forming of ocean. Can not any otherreasons also cause even a par of it?（可以精简一下，有点啰嗦） We might wonder. Forexample, there is a hypothesis that suggests water is from the inner part ofthe earth, for water can exist in the form of compound with some minerals. Itis entirely possible that some water comes from the inner part of the earth.The author failed to prove that other hypothesis can not contribute a part tothis matter.

In addition, the author failed toprovide information of the existence of comets. Inthis hypothesis, the amount of these comets that containing water should beexactly equal to the amount of water containing in the sea.（你陷入诡辩了，作者可没有这样说啊，这只是你个人的猜测与推断） Is there any signsshowing that such comets had once come to earth? Even if so, since theformation of other planets like Mars are quite the same of our earth, thecomets are equal possibly to hit any other planets in solar system. Then why isthe earth the only planets that containing water? The hypothesis can notexplain this.

In sum, the author's conclusionis based on false premise and several reasoning flaws. To make it moreconvincible, he should provide further information showing that the comets arevery likely to hit earth, and after series process it can lead to the formationof ocean while other possible ways can not.
思路很清晰：
1.地球的水可能没有蒸发到太空
2.彗星与地球相撞不一定能带来水
3.地球的水也许还有其他来源