Argument50求拍

conniewangUID: 2610802

Argument50.Froma draft textbook manuscript submitted to a publisher.

"As Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks, the heatfrom those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of theplanet made the entire planet molten, even the surface. Any water present wouldhave evaporated and gone off into space. As the planet approached its currentsize, however, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and watervapor around it as an atmosphere. Because comets are largely ice made up offrozen water and gases, a comet striking Earth then would have vaporized. Theresulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere, eventuallyfalling as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth. Therefore, thewater 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，撞击和行星越来越大的重力能量产生的热量使整个行星融化，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。

The manuscriptintroduces the generating process of the water in Earth by describing how Earthwas formed, how atmosphere came into being, how comets brought ice to Earth andhow these ice evaporated, fell on Earth and originated oceans. The theory seemsscientific and reasonable at first glance, however, after careful scrutinies, itexposes several inexplicit fallacies.

First of all,according to scientific general knowledge, we know that more than seventypercent of the Earth surface is covered by oceans. Does such a large amount ofwater in the oceans all come from comets? Then how many comets have strickenEarth to generate enough water to fill the oceans? How much water did eachcomet bring to Earth? Unfortunately, the manuscript has totally ignored thesequestions which are extraordinarily crucial to reveal the secret of the watersource of Earth, as a result, its conclusion is less persuasive and warranted.

Moreover, thereare still some vague points existed in the description of what happens after cometshave collided Earth. The manuscript speculates boldly that a comet strikingEarth would have vaporized, the resulting water vapor would have been retainedin the atmosphere and eventually fallen on the cooled and solidified surface ofEarth. This speculation leaves some confusion. According to the manuscript, themolten planet Earth seems to have changed into a cool one in a very short time.As we know, only when temperature rises to higher than 100 degrees centigradecan water evaporate into gas, and vice versa. The manuscript, however, fails toexplain clearly the temperature change of the surface of Earth -- how and whendid the surface of Earth become cooled and solidified, thus fails to illuminatewhen the frozen water held in comets vaporized and when the vapor fell on theearth. Therefore the speculation seems too hasty and immature.

The author’sconclusion that “the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets”is too absolute to be convincing, for there are other possible explanations.For instance, the water may come from chemical reactions of different gases inthe atmosphere under certain circumstances. What’s more, because no fact couldtell us how Earth generated and where the water in oceans came from, everytheory that tries to explain these questions is only human’s imagination andspeculation. We cannot tell which theory is right, which is wrong. What we cansay is only “it sounds reasonable”, or “it’s a possible explanation”. That’swhy we indicate that the author makes a mistake on his conclusion.

In all, themanuscript needs to give more sufficient and precise evidence to support thetheory and amend its fallacies to become qualified as a textbook.

JeremieUID: 2622601

1# conniewang
回拍ing~~

The manuscript introduces the generating process of the water in Earth by describing how Earth was formed, how atmosphere came into being, how comets brought ice to Earth and how these ice evaporated, fell on Earth and originated oceans. The theory seems scientific and reasonable at first glance, however, after careful scrutinies, it exposes several inexplicit fallacies. (开头简介概括,意思清楚)

First of all, according to scientific general knowledge, we know that more than seventy percent of the Earth surface is covered by oceans. Does such a large amount of water in the oceans all come from comets? Then how many comets have stricken Earth to generate enough water to fill the oceans? How much water did each comet bring to Earth? Unfortunately, the manuscript has totally ignored these questions which are extraordinarily crucial to reveal the secret of the water source of Earth, as a result, its conclusion is less persuasive and warranted.(连续的问句很严密)

Moreover, there are still some vague points existed in the description of what happens after comet shave collided Earth. The manuscript speculates boldly(用词准确) that a comet striking Earth would have vaporized, the resulting water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere and eventually fallen on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth. This speculation leaves some confusions. According to the manuscript, the molten planet Earth seems to have changed into a cool one in a very short time. As we know, only when temperature rises to higher than 100 degrees centigrade can water evaporate into gas, and vice versa. The manuscript, however, fails to explain clearly the temperature change of the surface of Earth -- how and when did(去掉) the surface of Earth become cooled and solidified, thus fails to illuminate when the frozen water held in comets vaporized and when the vapor fell on the earth. Therefore the speculation seems too hasty and immature. (篇幅长,但论证有条理)

The author’s conclusion that “the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets” is too absolute to be convincing(absolute用词准确), for there are other possible explanations. For instance, the water may come from chemical reactions of different gases in the atmosphere under certain circumstances. What’s more, because no fact could tell us how Earth generated and where the water in oceans came from, every theory that tries to explain these questions is only human’s imagination and speculation. We cannot tell which theory is right, which is wrong.(这几句说的有点无可奈何的感觉,可以加上unless提供足够的证据) What we can say is only “it sounds reasonable”, or “it’s a possible explanation”. That’s why we indicate that the author makes a mistake on his conclusion.

In all, the manuscript needs to give more sufficient and precise evidence to support the theory and amend its fallacies to become qualified as a textbook.(结尾相当简洁,倒是很实用^^我觉得可以具体说一两个,避免仓促收尾之嫌)

总体来说写得很专业,很符合ets风格. 逻辑清楚,语言简练达意,基本没什么问题.
不足的地方是,倒数第二段给人有凑字数的感觉,虽然实际上可能不是. 我想可以把前面的分论点单提出来, 这一段少写一点, 这样既保持一贯的简洁之风, 又保证形式上的充实.
都说这篇难写, 你这篇可供大家学习了J

nuaaskyUID: 2615912

我也来说两句~
我觉得这篇确实写得不错，行文流畅，用词也很好~
我想倒数第二段是想表达水可能有其他途径产生，但既然不是所有的科学推断都是能证实的，有些甚至只是假说，那么在题中的manuscript里就不应该说水一定来自彗星。是这个意思吧？我觉得这个表达的观点没错。但确实在what's more之后的部分有些如2楼所说凑字数之嫌。或者可以考虑结尾的时候用到？但是已经写得不错了。
另外说一个小问题，文章中表达“推测”，一直反复用speculation，这个词至少出现了三次，是否可以每次都换一个词呢？
楼主的这篇不错，应该是起评5分的，我拿回去好好学习了~~:)

conniewangUID: 2610802

谢谢Jeremy和nuaasky，你们说的很有道理，我写的时候的确是有点虎头蛇尾，呵呵，倒数第二段我再想想怎么改，还有用词什么的多做斟酌。二位辛苦了！