ARGUMENT50 by swekimn (modified by bernina)

swekimnUID：2649781

50.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."

自认为这篇是最近最好的了~~~

Grounding on the theory mentioned above, supposing that comet would be vaporized when strike earth, and then synthesizing a series of hypothesizes and supposing a condition about earth, the author accordingly claims that oceans originated from comet. However, it is fraught with vague, oversimplified, and unwarranted assumptions and exposed the inconsistency in the textbook.

Begin with, the author infers on the assumption that a comet strike the earth is inevitable result that it is would be vaporized. This is fallacious, at least without sufficient evidences, with which comet strike can vapor as only result. It is possible that when it strikes earth, the comet maybe cannot be vapor. Because the comets largely ice make up of frozen water and gases, it is known to all that evaporation need a certain temperature to make it vaporize. The author lack to supply this condition and haste to posit the comet would vapor it is unconvincing. Besides, the froze water maybe only change to little bead and the gravitational cannot hold the bead, with which all or many of bead throw to the space by the centrifugal force. Even if the temperature is enough to vapor the comet, the author fails to provide how large of the volume about comet vaporized, maybe it is a little part of the comet, and the rest is fall to surface of the earth. So without a detailed analysis of the reasons for the comet vaporized and rule out the comet vaporized grade, it is absurd for author to assert the strike can vapor comet.

Secondly, the author only to provide the fact that the current planet have strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as atmosphere, so he unfair it to the odd water vapor is also retained in the atmosphere. Maybe the atmosphere is saturation and the earth could not have power to hold the water vapor from comet. Even if the earth can retain the odd water vapor, the author ignores to supply the evidence that the rains from comet vaporized. Maybe the comet vaporized form the water vapor and gas, and make up the atmosphere, and do not fall to the earth by rain. Furthermore, in this textbook, the author does not provide the basic information about the rain and how the rains form.

Additionally, even if the rain is come from the water vapor by the comet, is maybe one of the factors to up come to ocean not the main cause. Maybe the other subjects came from space, for example, the asteroid, which attrite with atmosphere and form the water vapor. What’s more, the earth maybe has large water when it origination, and after many years the separate water or lake make up the ocean. The author ascribe the rain from the comet vaporized is the only factor exclusive to form ocean, the reason it is irrational. In short, the result is fallacious unless other factors that may contributable to the same result.

To sum up, the author supplies a seemingly favorable process to the ocean, whereas his deduction is unwarranted. To buttress the conclusion, the author should provide evidence that the earth have no water when it origination. Additionally, the author must rule out other possible causes of the ocean.

berninaUID：2503038

紫色：我的建议
红色：有问题
墨绿：还不错


Grounding on the theory mentioned above, supposing that comet would be vaporized when strike earth, and then synthesizing a series of hypothesizes and supposing a condition about earth, the author accordingly claims that oceans originated from comet.（我个人认为，在开头复述原文是很划不来的做法，因为根本没有用，还要占用宝贵的时间，这个时间在考场上用来检查错误都比写这个好的多。） However, it is fraught with vague, oversimplified, and unwarranted assumptions and exposed the inconsistency in the textbook.（这句不通，这个fraught是什么词性？动词还是形容词？动词的话就和is 冲突，形容词的话，我就不明白是什么了。。。还有用argument代替textbook 比较好）

Begin with（我记得是to begin with吧，不过如果你确定也可以这么用的话就行）, the author infers on the assumption（删掉！） that a comet strike the earth is (an, 名词前要有冠词和定冠词)inevitable result that it is would be vaporized.This is fallacious, at least without sufficient evidences, with which comet strike can vapor as only result（这个定语从句。。。如果evidence是先行词的话，难道说comet strike with evidence?）. It is possible that when it strikes earth, the comet maybe(前面已经有了it is possible that 了) cannot be vapored. Because the comets largely ice make up of frozen water and gases, it is known to all that evaporation need a certain temperature to make it vaporize. The author lack to supply this condition and haste to posit the comet would vapor it is unconvincing. (作者已经说了他会融化，你就默认了就行了，攻击这里不好)Besides, the froze water maybe （may）only change to little bead and the gravitational cannot hold the bead, with which all or many of bead throw to the space by the centrifugal force.(就算仅仅是变成了bead，那又怎么样？能说明什么问题？写a的时候要句句击中要害，不要让rater觉得你思维已经被打乱了。。没写一句，都要想，我这句对攻击作者目的有什么作用，如果想不到，就不要写了) Even if the temperature is enough to vapor the comet, the author fails to provide how large of the volume about comet vaporized, maybe it is a little part of the comet, and the rest is fall to surface of the earth.(不要忘了，文章中有这句Any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space.) So without a detailed analysis of the reasons for the comet vaporized and rule out the comet vaporized grade, it is absurd for author to assert the strike can vapor comet.

这段你大概想论述 其实 撞击不一定会让comet融化。可是你这样写确实很不好写。写出来也很没有力度。

撞击（melton+evaporate）——>(一定质量后) 能够hold住水
                                    +                                          ——> 和comet 撞击后其中的水被hold住了——>hold住的水变成了大气—                                                                                                          ——>大气层降水 ——>地球上的水来自comet
                       comet是有冰雪等组成的

你想想，你上一段是攻击了那条逻辑链接？你在不自觉间，逻辑也跳跃了。

Secondly, the author only to provide the fact that the current planet have strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as atmosphere, so he unfair it to the odd water vapor is also retained in the atmosphere（病句吧）. Maybe the atmosphere is saturation and the earth could not have power to hold the water vapor（which vapor or vapored） from comet. Even if the earth can retain the odd water vapor, the author ignores to supply the evidence that the rains from comet vaporized. Maybe the comet vaporized form the water vapor and gas, and make up the atmosphere, and do not fall to the earth by rain（应经脱离首句，与首句无关了）. Furthermore, in this textbook, the author does not provide the basic information about the rain and how the rains form.（太vague,而且人家题目说了，rains是大气层降下来的，怎么还问how it formed 呢）

这段想要论证什么呢？


Additionally, even if the rain is come（动词重复 sb. comes from sw.） from the water vapor（X） by the comet, is maybe one of the factors to up come to ocean not the main cause. Maybe the other subjects came from space, for example, the asteroid, which attrite with atmosphere and form the water vapor（这一句，总算是说到了个点子上。但是，这本来是只得用一段来展开的，可你就用了一句，而且还是杂糅在别的段里，可惜了啊。）. What’s more, the earth maybe has large water when it origination(有也在撞击的时候蒸发了), and after many years the separate water（可以这样表达？） or lake make up the ocean. The author ascribe the rain from the comet vaporized is the only factor exclusive to form ocean, the reason it is irrational（这是只得用一段说的，这句用做首句就不错，不过注意语法，整个是个病句）. In short, the result is fallacious unless other factors that may contributable to the same result.

To sum up, the author supplies a seemingly favorable process to the ocean, whereas his deduction is unwarranted. To buttress the conclusion, the author should provide evidence that the earth have no water when it origination. Additionally, the author must rule out other possible causes of the ocean.
结尾段这么写就挺好的了。让步+建议是比较理想的结尾方案。

In sum: 1 语法错误太严重，这个要好好恶补，不然就会有大问题。
            2 逻辑不清晰， 以后写文章的时候，要把作者目的深深刻在脑子里，没写一句想想到底这样写对攻击作者目的有没有好处，千万不要太分散。这个帖子你看看https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-993905-1-3.html

ps: 这篇彗星撞地球也是经典难题之一，写成这样实属正常，不要气馁，勇气可嘉，继续加油。我过两天会写这个题目的同主题，写完后希望能帮你弄清楚一些。

ps's ps: any comment is welcomed

swekimnUID：2649781

2# bernina
  万紫千红~~处处开花~~
   斑斑不容易~~辛苦辛苦~~能改完我这篇奇文~~哈哈~~
    学习了~~明天重写~~