Argument50 0710G同主题写作第四期by Shalonbas

shalonbasUID：2184474

"As Earth was being formed out of thecollision of space rocks, the heat from those collisions and from theincreasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten,even the surface. Any water present would have evaporated and gone off intospace. As the planet approached its current size, however, its gravitationbecame 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 cometstriking Earth then would have vaporized. The resulting water vapor would havebeen retained in the atmosphere, eventually falling as rain on the cooled andsolidified surface of Earth. Therefore, the water in Earth's oceans must haveoriginated from comets."
WORDS: 531          TIME: 00:49:43 (后来又在word下改了3分钟的样子，反正就是严重超时)         DATE: 2007-8-7 1:24:10

The author of this manuscript attempts to validate the idea that it is from the comets, rather than other possibilities,  that the oceans on the earth originate. Though the augument sounds reasonable at the first glance, it suffers from two flaws in attributing the generation of oceans to comets, and a hasty elimination of other alternative solutions to the question, all of which unroot his proposal and are discussed in detail as below.

To begin with, the theoretical potential impact of comets on generation of earth water does not necessarily lead to the real contribution made by those comets in practice. Evidence is essential here to convince us that the comets had striked the earth in the generation of water, otherwise it is not safe to involve the comets in this topic. It is just like the case that it is unfair to accuse a man of killing only because he owns a gun, and another person happened to die in his neighborhood. Therefore,without giving more evidence that are sufficient to testify that the comets did strike the earth in history, evidence like the remains of the comets, it is too hasty for the author to turn to the comets for the water generation.

Secondly, even if there is evidence to show that the comets have striked the earth, the corresponding idea that comets contribute to the water accumulation is not equivalent to the concept that comets are able to generate the ocean. As we all know, the ocean makes the majority of our earth, around 70 %, which means a huge amount of water. Thus, it is crucial to prove that the water contained in those comets suffice to accumulate such a great amount of water. Without providing more information about the number, size, weight, percentage of water in those comets, it is not convincing that the comets are able to make this happen.

Finally, although it turns out that the comets contain enough water for oceans, the author could never conclude that they are the only reason of ocean origination without investigating other possilities. For one thing, the author assumes that no water sustains in the enviroment with high temperature due to the collisions. However, there might be a certain amount of water locked in the earth, which flows out to form oceans because of earthquakes that occur thousands of years later. In addition, it seems that the author fails to consider the possible impact of other heavenly bodies, such as the asteroids. According to his theory, asteroids containing enough water can also lead to oceans on the earth if they striked the earth at a right time. Therefore, without inspecting and eliminating all other potential solutions above, it is not safe to draw the conclusion that it is the comets, rather than other possibilities, that originate the oceans.

In conclusion, in order to strengthen his theory on ocean origination, the author needs to provide more evidence to assure that the comets are actually involved and contribute to ocean formation on the earth. Also, he should make a thorough investigation that eliminates other potential solutions before claiming the comets are the only reason of the ocean origination.

[ 本帖最后由 shalonbas 于 2007-8-7 02:00 编辑 ]

shalonbasUID：2184474

为方便讨论，特把我的自白转帖到这里.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
我今晚是第一次仔细分析这道题，在动笔之前犹豫了很长时间，总是拿不准该如何攻击，最后经过激烈的思想斗争，我才选择了现在的这种写法。下面是俺的自白，抛砖引玉，希望和大家讨论一下，呵呵。

Phase I: At the very beginning, 我和某位gter的想法一样，觉得该题很好写，因为言多必失嘛，作者讲得越多就会让人觉得有越多的漏洞。于是我就很开心的开始在草稿纸上把有问题的地方和攻击方法列了出来（比如说什么地球不一定是通过天体撞击产生的之类）。但好景不长，没过一会我就觉得思路凌乱了，因为我发现自己很快就进入了一个只注重细节推导和可能性罗列的境地。我觉得这其实是一个陷阱，因为这样做是希望从技术的层面来打倒arguer，该思路做到极致就是如天使版主所说的“we should present a totally new theory as an alternative”。

说实话，当时看到天使的话时我倒吸了一口热气（发烧了，恩），但随之就产生了以下两个疑问：
第一 有可能么？
       虽然Adidas说Impossible is nothing，虽然我是学工科的，虽然我觉得自己的地理和天文知识还不算匮乏，但我仍然觉得这绝对是个小概率事件，而且后果不外乎就是造出一个更加漏洞百出的文章被ETS不屑：小样，就你还敢鄙视我（具体形象请自行参考有关图片）

第二 有必要么？
       在预料到如此这般会死得很惨后，我不由得退一步想，有必要么？
       是啊，有必要么？记得前段时间在看某阅读教程时，作者安慰大家说看到不熟悉的科目也不要怕，ETS考的是大家的阅读理解能力，不是专业知识。难道在这里ETS就突然变心了么？答案当然是否定的，ARG考什么？地球人都知道是逻辑思维和表达能力，GTER都知道不能见到SURVEY就肾上腺素狂飙，而应该先静下心来分析分析作者的逻辑链先，为什么到了这个题目就不坚持了呢？带着这个信念，我愉快地去冲澡了，为的就是抛开之前钻研了很多的技术细节和可能性，而力图勾勒出作者整体性的思维架构。

Phase II: 在勾勒作者逻辑链的时候，我是从结论开始往上溯源的。首先本题的结论很清楚，作者意图证明地球上的海水是由于彗星撞击而产生的。我认为本文的结论有两层意思：

第一，彗星撞击可以导致大海的形成；第二，大海的形成就是彗星搞出来的，没其他东东什么事。

于是，作者在文中的倒数第二句说彗星含有大量的水，第三句说彗星的水可以冷却降雨给地球提供液态水，这两句都是意图证明彗星撞击能够生成大海。而在这之前的部分我同意星夜斑斑的观点，是作者具体推导的大背景。

弄清楚这些后，我们到底该攻击什么呢？

首先想到的肯定是攻击大背景，或者许多人认为的premise，这是常用的手段，通常也很有效。我认为本题中当然可以攻击，但问题在于如果大家攻击这个的话，那题目下面的具体论述就和大家没有关系了。这里的大背景是给大家提供一个和作者argu的平台，因为争论必须是基于某些共识的基础上才可以完成。就象我和同学争论以前的Juven和Man.utd到底哪个更好。我说Man.utd踢得好，因为他们的进攻如水银泄地，酣畅淋漓（特指N年前小贝，约克和科尔的那支球队），看得过瘾；同学不同意，说Juven虽然踢得难看，奉行1：0主义（特指N年前卡佩罗带的那支老妇人），但就是能赢球。我听了他的观点后立刻闭嘴不言了，为啥？大家连争论的平台都没有嘛，还有啥意思呢？再或者，用郑钧的话说就是--大家都不在一个频道上，恩。顺便问下，有人会希望同与之不在一个频道上的人讨论问题么？

基于以上一大堆的理由，我选择先暂且同意前面的大背景论述，重点分析作者在这个大前提下所做的推导，然后果然发现问题来了：

1 倒数第三句说，彗星上有水，因此撞击地球的彗星水气将会蒸发。
   该句说得仔细点就是：彗星上有水，因此，（如果彗星撞击地球），则该彗星上的水都将被蒸发（给下面的降雨打下伏笔）。
   这里面暗含了一个前提条件：彗星真的撞了地球。咱们暂且不管事实是不是这样，也不管地球上那些莫名其妙的大坑（我认为ETS是不会假设这些大家都知道的）。如果仅分析本文，我们能得到相关证据表明彗星真撞地球了么？如果没有撞，那你彗星里有再多水也跟我地球没有关系的嘛。打个比方，我有一把枪，然后某天俺家一个邻居死于枪杀，结果警察跑来逮我，理由是：你有作案工具，所以是你干的。我不是傻瓜，所以肯定会进行如下抗议：有能力做并不代表就是我干的，你总得拿出证据来啊，比方说他尸体里的子弹和我枪的膛线吻合之类的~~本题也一样。

2 即使这事跟彗星有关，即使象倒数第二句所说的那样，彗星上的水转化为了地表水，可送点水给地球与送大海给地球是两个概念吧，你啥都不说，我咋知道你彗星到底有多大能耐呢？因此，这个地方也需要好好批判一下。

3 上面两个攻击点是针对作者结论的第一层面，即彗星水能够形成大海；而这一个攻击点则是攻击结论的第二个层面，即大海的形成就是彗星水来的。这个地方的攻击方法大家一定都很熟悉，我就不多说了，只想提醒大家一点，题目中的前提描述中有一句"Any water present would 蒸发"，当时我看到这个present的时候就觉得不对劲，后来在星夜给的大海可能成因时（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_world%27s_oceans）果然发现一条[Liquid may have been "locked" in the Earth's rocks and leaked out over millions of years.]正好与之对应。可以看到，ETS的人真是太狡诈了，大家一定要仔细审题啊，呵呵。

OK，找到三点，可以开始动笔了。

尾声

终于该收尾了，其实大家可以看到，我在上面列出的具体问题都是GTER门找到过或肯定有能力找到的。我写本文的出发点也不是为了和大家探讨本题到底有哪些具体问题可以攻击，而是为了通过我之前走的弯路和思维历程提醒一下大家在攻击ARGU时对逻辑链攻击的重要性，细节不是不重要，只是没有逻辑链重要。我们的文章不能只是对题目零散的细节回应，如果有可能的话，最好也能写成具有一定逻辑结构的文章。（比方说我经常看到大家先攻击premise不成立，然后在下一段就会让步说，“Even if 这个premise 成立，作者还。。。 。。。”，我觉得这就是很清晰的思路。）

OK，终于把我的自白写完了。收工睡觉，欢迎指教，恩。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原文地址:https://bbs.gter.net/thread-716751-2-1.html

星夜无夏UID：2333978

评点一句,大家工作不要做太细在ARG上. 文字背景越多的题其实限制越多,条件越具化,不像ISSUE题.就那么几个字,随便你写.这样其实条理是很清晰的,我建议大家看题时先看一遍英文的.看不懂再参考中文的.不要看了翻译再去理解原题.一定要养成用英文构成英文思维的直接的逻辑推理过程.你会发现,原题其实很清晰.

胆大心细.A的核心态度.

g.10.fightingUID：2347826

Sorry, I am late to be here；I will have my Aw in the next Monday, so I study in the classroom.
Thank you for your amending, your argument is much better than me.
Come on, and good luck for your AW.