- 最后登录
- 2006-1-12
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 800
- 声望
- 5
- 注册时间
- 2005-6-5
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 1
- 积分
- 600
- UID
- 2106668
- 声望
- 5
- 寄托币
- 800
- 注册时间
- 2005-6-5
- 精华
- 1
- 帖子
- 0
|
------摘要------
作者:amanda1011 共用时间:29分5秒 362 words (修改后489 words)
从2005年6月18日16时11分到2005年6月18日16时40分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The conclusion of the argument is that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To support his/her view, the arguer describe the forming process of the Earth's oceans. He declares that because comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, which would have vaporized and hold in the atmosphere by the Earth's gravitation when a comet stroke Earth, the resulting water can eventually fall as rain on the surface of Earth to form the oceans. However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws though it seems convincing at first glance.
First of all, the arguer claims that as the planet approached its current size, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere. But he/she provide no evidence to show us that whether the gravitation of the Earth became strong enough when the comet striking took place. Apparently, if the gravitation is too weak when striking happened, the planet was not able to hold the gases and water vapor coming from the comet striking and lost the water vapor in the outer space. In this case, lacking an explicit evidence about the time of striking, the conclusion would be undermined totally.
Secondly, even if the comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, we could not subjectively reach a conclusion that a comet striking Earth then would have it vaporized and the resulting water vapor would fall as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth. We haven't seen any scientific support about whether the ice of the comet would be changed into water and vaporized into the atmosphere.If the temparature of Earth while striking happened was so cold that even the heat from the collision could not make the ice melten, there was no water vapor, let alone the rain falling on Earth. How can we get the conclusion that the water falling as rain form the Earth's oceans without the doubtless source of water?
Finally, the arguer overlooks other matters that can form the oceans in Earth. For example, the chemical changes occurred in the surface or inside of Earth would conbine the hydrogen element to the oxygen element and led to water. Moreover, the argument is based on an insufficient support of the relationship between the rain falling on the surface of Earth and the water in Earth's oceans. As we know, water falling on Earth could be vaporized into the atmosphere again, or soak into the Earth's surface and absorbed by the soil. The arguer does not explain how could the rain be accumulated enough to form the oceans. So, his/her conclusion could hardly bear the careful consideration.
In sum, because the arguer makes many logical fallacies and provides insufficient evidences to support his argument, his opinion lacks credibility. A further study on the relation between ice of the comet and water in Earth's oceans should be needed. |
|