Argument50 我的第一篇 拍一篇回两篇

skaterUID: 2116878

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."

The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfect theoretical physical model. However, none could record the actual process during which our earth formed and anything existed before human beings appeared. So any idea about our natural process is only a hypothesis which cannot be as the same as the natural way included the argument above.  In addition, the arguer's idea is in some extent paradoxical even as a hypothesis in some aspect follows:
     Acknowledged that the Earth was being formed out of the collision of spaces rocks as fact, the arguer failed establish the cause relationship between increasing gravitational energy of the planet and the molten of the planet with its surface. According to some basic physical knowledge, the gravitational energy can only transfer to the kinetic energy during the occurring of the collision .Yet this kinetic energy may later transfer to the heat that may cause the moltening, but the arguer does not describe the process explicitly.
    Secondly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy that he did not explain the source of the water presented which served as one of the constituent of the atmosphere before the comets' striking . If it is true that there was water before the comet's striking , the idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet's cannot convince us. How we know the proportion of the water that from the comet and the Earth itself? Thus we can not obtain the conclusion that the water of the Earth's oceans originated from the comet completely or even mostly.
    Thirdly, the reducing process of the kinetic energy and gravitational energy that was increasing has not been explicitly expounded. It is the prerequisite that the Earth cooled down and the water in gas would coagulate then the rain fell.  In addition, the arguer treats the process of rain falling as a matter of the process of the ocean formed without discuss the scale and time of the rain fall. We can not see any possibility of any rain fall that can form a new ocean in our time. So the arguer treats a lack of other possible process as constituting sufficient proof that the rain fall after a deduced comet's striking.
   Finally, what happened during that time is approximate hypothesis according to the discovery in geography and geologic. We cannot get a conclusion of the origin of the water of the Earth's oceans in a hurry.  
因为我刚来，所以很希望能得到大家的指导。给我回拍的前三个人，每拍一砖必回两砖！多 谢。另外本人以另发帖征GF。希望有共同进步的伙伴:)

[ Last edited by skater on 2005-7-18 at 22:44 ]

alcestisUID: 2101945

哎 不要急 晚上回来一定拍你~~~

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

马上。

拍完了：

The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfect ???theoretical physical model. However, none could record the actual process during which our earth formed and anything existed before human beings appeared. So any idea about our natural process is only a hypothesis which cannot be as the same as the natural way included the argument above. 这么写像issue了，我觉得没必要在这些前提上计较。省时间多批主要的。 In addition, the arguer's idea is in some extent paradoxical even as a hypothesis in some aspects follows:上面的perfect和这一比太刺眼了，说首先看起来reasonable就行了，perfect太过。
  first,   Acknowledged that the Earth引文中都没有用the，我都忘了到底该不该用了…… was being formed out of the collision of spaces rocks as fact, the arguer failedto  establish the causecausal relationship or causality relationship between原文是 the heat from increasing gravitational energy of the planet and the molten moltening? of the planet with its surface. According to some basic physical knowledge, the gravitational energy can only transfer to the kinetic energy during the occurring of the collision .Yet this kinetic energy may later transfer to the heat that may cause the moltening, but the arguer does not describe the process explicitly. ????我理解原文的意思是说碰撞和重力势能会产生热，而重力势能的确会导致岩石的摩擦从而产生热（是这么解释的吧？……我文科的），这一点似乎不需要这么详细的展开，因为后面重要的错误还有很多
    Secondly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy请教一下，这是什么意思？我以前没见过 that he did doesnot explain the source of the water presented which served as one of the constituent of the atmosphere before the comets' striking .别扭 If it is true that there was water before the comet's striking感觉说的不明白，原文说地球刚产生时因为巨大的热量是留不住水的，你说那时有水，就必须反驳作者的这个论证 , the idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet'scomets’ cannot convince us. How we know the proportion这似乎是原文的一个重要不足，最好分开具体展开。 of the water that from the comet and the Earth itself? Thus we can not obtain the conclusion that the water of the Earth's oceans originated from the comet completely or even mostly.
    Thirdly, the reducing process of the kinetic energy and gravitational energy w我觉得你好像绕进去了……that was increasing has not been explicitly expounded. It is the prerequisite that the Earth cooled down and the water in gas would coagulate then the rain fell. 不明白 In addition, the arguer treats the process of rain falling as a matter of the process of the ocean formed without discuss the scale and time of the rain fall. We can not see any possibility of any rain fall that can form a new ocean in our time.和上文提到proportion有重合之处，最后上下整合一下，单列一段讨论。 So the arguer treats a lack of other possible process as constituting sufficient proof that the rain fall after a deduced comet's striking.
   Finally, what happened during that time is approximate hypothesis according to the discovery in geography and geologic. We cannot get a conclusion of the origin of the water of the Earth's oceans in a hurry.  ????第一段重复，也正和第一段的内容一样，似乎没有必要讨论

据说这是arg里很难的一道题，而且这是你的第一篇，写出来就算成功！
However，改写和以后写时，我个人的感觉是写前一定要把思路梳理清楚，最好层层深入，条理清楚（虽然我也做不到这一点……）。为了督促自己做到这一点可以在写正文前一定要提纲，看看整个的脉络是不是清楚的，然后再动笔。这道题大家已经提出来了很多问题，你可以到同主题看看别人的提纲，会对扩宽思路很有帮助的。

赞一下rp！

[ Last edited by tangjihede on 2005-7-20 at 14:41 ]

hustzwjUID: 203387

呵呵!回拍!

[ Last edited by hustzwj on 2005-7-20 at 15:51 ]

hustzwjUID: 203387

"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."
<
对题目的分析: 我觉得在because的前面的论述都是事实部分,我们应接受全部. 真正的逻辑错误在后面. 对于: As the planet approached its current size, however, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere.这句话可以说是作者既得的事实, 针对这样的情况, 作者做出如下猜测: the water might come from the striking of comets with earth. 我开始错误地认为: 既然上文已提到strong enough to hold the water… ,后面就不需要再推测了, 因为地球上已有water了. :(呵呵,本人理解能力有限!
>
The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfect theoretical physical model(结论准确!). However, none could record the actual process during which our earth formed and anything existed<existing> before human beings appeared. So any idea about our natural process is only a hypothesis which cannot be as the same as the natural way included<including> the argument above.(感觉写的有些像ISSUE,这些都是你自己加的内容吧!建议看一下[https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D146])  In addition, the arguer's idea is in some extent paradoxical even as a hypothesis in some aspect follows:
     Acknowledged that the Earth was being formed out of the collision of spaces rocks as fact, the arguer failed establish the cause<casual> relationship between increasing gravitational energy of the planet and the molten<melt> of the planet with<on> its surface. According to some basic physical knowledge---<又在加入你自己的知识了?>, the gravitational energy can only transfer to the kinetic energy during the occurring of the collision .Yet this kinetic energy may later transfer to the heat that may cause the moltening<melting>, but the arguer does not describe the process explicitly.
<有点偏离材料了!^_^>
    Secondly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy that he did not explain the source of the water presented which served as one of the constituent of the atmosphere before the comets' striking<作者在文中并未提到whether there was water on the earth before the comet’s striking>  . If it is true that there was water before the comet's striking , the idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet's cannot convince us<我觉得在AW中应该尽量避免用you,we等人称代词.而用one或her/he更好些!>. How we know the proportion of the water that from the comet and the Earth itself? Thus we can not obtain the conclusion that the water of the Earth's oceans originated from the comet completely or even mostly.(个人觉得这段正中ets的piont)
    Thirdly, the reducing process of the kinetic energy and gravitational energy that was increasing has not been explicitly expounded. It is the prerequisite that the Earth cooled down and the water in gas would coagulate then the rain fell<感觉你在对其进行原理分析,而不是以材料为出发点>.  In addition, the arguer treats the process of rain falling as a matter of the process of the ocean formed <forming of the ocean>without discuss the scale and time of the rain fall. We can not see any possibility of any rain fall that can form a new ocean in our time. So the arguer treats a lack of other possible process as constituting sufficient proof that the rain fall after a deduced comet's striking.<关于是否可以形成海洋我觉得不是很重要!>
   Finally, what happened during that time is <only an>approximate hypothesis according to the discovery in <geography and geologic>?. We cannot get a conclusion of the origin of the water of the Earth's oceans in a hurry. (结尾是否写的有些仓促了?^_^)
小结:
1)        感觉你对某些词的理解和应用很熟练.看来你的语言功底是deep的!^_^
2)        强烈建议看我上面提到的帖子, 对issue与argu的区别要clear!
3)        另外也帮忙改一下我的啦!就是<<….>>的部分! 先道个谢了!呵呵!
<after retouching>
<<
   The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfect theoretical physical model. However, after more consideration, I have found several flaws that make the speaker’s claim much unconvincing. (个人觉得开头点到为止,这里不是考试的重点!)
  Firstly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy that he did not explain whether the water had been existed before the comets' striking. It was much possible that water came out from chemical reactions happening on the earth’s molten surface with such high temperature as mentioned in the material by author. Further more, the water created before may gradually converged to large amount which later constitute the main part of water on earth. If it is true, the speaker’s claim that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet is unconvincing.
   Secondly, even if there was not water existing before the comet’s striking, the author’s assertion that comets were the only source of water on the earth is still open to question. There is one important uncertain factor which may leads to the total fallacy of author’s assumption----whether the condition in favor of the later vaporization of water resulting of the comet’s striking lasted for enough time. It is possible that after several thousand years, the earth’s condition changed drastically and the comets crashing onto earth were kept intact.
   On the other hand, if assuming that the comets could have been vaporized, there is also another question that how about the volume or frequencies of such striking? Were they big enough to leave as much water as possible eventually leading to the formation of ocean? While the speaker tells nothing about this, his/her assertion pales when facing his/her own lacking of evidence.
   In conclusion…………….
>>

[ Last edited by hustzwj on 2005-7-20 at 15:51 ]

skaterUID: 2116878

请你拍完了把你的两篇引用贴在下面，我会照承诺的好好改的，呵呵，对我的语言还有点自信

Originally posted by alcestis at 2005-7-20 08:11
哎 不要急 晚上回来一定拍你~~~

skaterUID: 2116878

回TANGJIHEDE：
The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfect ??? （perfectly,不好意思）theoretical physical model. However, none could record the actual process during which our earth formed and anything existed before human beings appeared. So any idea about our natural process is only a hypothesis which cannot be as the same as the natural way included the argument above. 这么写像issue了，我觉得没必要在这些前提上计较。省时间多批主要的。（我的意思是作者的主观臆断，是一个对总体观点的总批。如果是ISSUE ，应该是提出自己的观点对吗？让我们讨论一下。新东方的讲义里有个无端假设） In addition, the arguer's idea is in some extent paradoxical even as a hypothesis in some aspects follows:上面的perfect和这一比太刺眼了，说首先看起来reasonable就行了，perfect太过。（说的是，谢谢。不过我的第一句还有一个意思，就是PLAUSIBLE 有“似是而非的意思”，也就是说先反讽他。但似是而非这个义项有一个老师说是对的，还有一个老师说在英文中应该只有“似是”，没有“而非”，今天刚说的，所以。。。。虽然在批判的时候很好用，不要学我，以后还是用的小心点。多谢了！）
  first,   Acknowledged that the Earth引文中都没有用the，我都忘了到底该不该用了……（是不应该，多谢！） was being formed out of the collision of spaces rocks as fact, the arguer failedto  establish the causecausal relationship or causality relationship between原文是 the heat from increasing gravitational energy of the planet and the molten moltening? of the planet with its surface. According to some basic physical knowledge, the gravitational energy can only transfer to the kinetic energy during the occurring of the collision .Yet this kinetic energy may later transfer to the heat that may cause the moltening, but the arguer does not describe the process explicitly. ????我理解原文的意思是说碰撞和重力势能会产生热，而重力势能的确会导致岩石的摩擦从而产生热（是这么解释的吧？……我文科的），这一点似乎不需要这么详细的展开，因为后面重要的错误还有很多（我的意思是，重力势能应该先和动能相互转换，然后。。。作者没说清。但的确这确实不是什么重要的错误 ，赞！）   
Secondly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy请教一下，这是什么意思？我以前没见过（是说作者犯了自相矛盾的错误。很地道的语言，你也可以借鉴） that he did doesnot explain the source of the water presented which served as one of the constituent of the atmosphere before the comets' striking .别扭 If it is true that there was water before the comet's striking感觉说的不明白，原文说地球刚产生时因为巨大的热量是留不住水的，你说那时有水，就必须反驳作者的这个论证 （原文是ANY WATER PRESENT WOULD BE VAPORATE。如果照作者的说法全来自COMET，为什么用PRESENT？，说实话，我也不明白他这个        PRESENT是表示那时“地球本身的水”还是“如果有水存在的话”。。。）, the idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet'scomets’ cannot convince us. How we know the proportion这似乎是原文的一个重要不足，最好分开具体展开。（多谢提醒） of the water that from the comet and the Earth itself? Thus we can not obtain the conclusion that the water of the Earth's oceans originated from the comet completely or even mostly.
    Thirdly, the reducing process of the kinetic energy and gravitational energy w我觉得你好像绕进去了……that was increasing has not been explicitly expounded. It is the prerequisite that the Earth cooled down and the water in gas would coagulate then the rain fell. 不明白（下雨的前提是地球的冷却） In addition, the arguer treats the process of rain falling as a matter of the process of the ocean formed without discuss the scale and time of the rain fall. We can not see any possibility of any rain fall that can form a new ocean in our time.和上文提到proportion有重合之处，最后上下整合一下，单列一段讨论。（咦？我的意思是下雨怎么能形成大洋呢） So the arguer treats a lack of other possible process as constituting sufficient proof that the rain fall after a deduced comet's striking.
   Finally, what happened during that time is approximate hypothesis according to the discovery in geography and geologic. We cannot get a conclusion of the origin of the water of the Earth's oceans in a hurry.  ????第一段重复，也正和第一段的内容一样，似乎没有必要讨论

据说这是arg里很难的一道题，而且这是你的第一篇，写出来就算成功！
However，改写和以后写时，我个人的感觉是写前一定要把思路梳理清楚，最好层层深入，条理清楚（虽然我也做不到这一点……）。为了督促自己做到这一点可以在写正文前一定要提纲，看看整个的脉络是不是清楚的，然后再动笔。这道题大家已经提出来了很多问题，你可以到同主题看看别人的提纲，会对扩宽思路很有帮助的。

赞一下rp！（真是多谢。！！！请把你的两篇文章的连接放到回复里。）

[ Last edited by skater on 2005-7-20 at 16:50 ]

skaterUID: 2116878

Originally posted by hustzwj at 2005-7-20 15:49
"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 th ...

马上回拍。不过。。让我先去吃点东西。拍的有力量。。还有我承诺的是回拍两篇。还有什么放马过来吧 ！

alcestisUID: 2101945

The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfect theoretical physical model. However, none could record the actual process during which our earth formed and anything existed before human beings appeared. So any idea about our natural process is only a hypothesis which cannot be as the same as the natural way included the argument above. argue主要批的是作者的逻辑，而不是从这样宏观的角度来的，不过如果时间允许这样写一两句也未尝不可  In addition, the arguer's idea is in some extent paradoxical even as a hypothesis in some aspect follows:
     Acknowledged that the Earth was being formed out of the collision of spaces rocks as fact, the arguer failed to establish the cause relationship between increasing gravitational energy 这句话和你后文论证不符 应该说increasing gravitational energy不一定产生heat of the planet and the molten of the planet with its surface. According to some basic physical knowledge, the gravitational energy can only transfer to the kinetic energy during the occurring of the collision. 不一定只变成动能Yet this kinetic energy may later transfer to the heat that may cause the moltening, but the arguer does not describe the process explicitly. 这不是主要矛盾
    Secondly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy that he did not explain the source of the water presented which served as one of the constituent of the atmosphere before the comets' striking .atmosphere里不一定有水的 原文用would是虚拟语气吧…… If it is true that there was water before the comet's striking , the idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet's cannot convince us. How we know the proportion of the water that from the comet and the Earth itself? Thus we can not obtain the conclusion that the water of the Earth's oceans originated from the comet completely or even mostly.
    Thirdly, the reducing process of the kinetic energy and gravitational energy that was increasing has not been explicitly expounded. It is the prerequisite that the Earth cooled down and the water in gas would coagulate then the rain fell.  In addition, the arguer treats the process of rain falling as a matter of the process of the ocean formed without discuss the scale and time of the rain fall. We can not see any possibility of any rain fall that can form a new ocean in our time. in our time不行可是在那个时候可就不一定了，这一句是不是考虑删去 So the arguer treats a lack of other possible process as constituting sufficient proof that the rain fall after a deduced comet's striking.
   Finally, what happened during that time is approximate hypothesis according to the discovery in geography and geologic. We cannot get a conclusion of the origin of the water of the Earth's oceans in a hurry.  

楼主的语言几乎没有问题了  思路不太像常规的argue思路 找到的问题不是特别本质 另外 argue是逻辑批判为主的 建议看一下argue的常规批判入手点~~楼主已经改过我的一篇issue了 我获益不少~~~ 来日方长 以后多多交流

skaterUID: 2116878

回拍HUSTZWJ：
The arguer's idea that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets seems initially plausible according to the perfEct theoretical physical model. However, after more consideration, I have found several flaws that make the speaker’s claim much unconvincing. (个人觉得开头点到为止,这里不是考试的重点!) （最好的ARGUE开头应该由 1）复述作者的观点（论点）并说表面上行的通；2）HOWEVER，有不合理的地方；3）不合理的在几个方面（呈上起下，最好把几个ASPECT按顺序放，然后下面几段一一对应，显得有严密的逻辑性，可以给你加分。但你要是没时间就算了。其实费不了多少时间）
Firstly, the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy（请问你是参照我的还是。。？） that he did（DOSE NOT） not explain whether the water had been existed before the comets' striking（你是假定了地球上本身就有水？）. It was much（MORE） possible that water came out（这里是不是用WAS ENGENDERED 更地道些？） from chemical reactions happening （OCCURRING，注意HAPPEN 和OCCUR的不同）on the（根据TANGJIHEDE拍我的，好象地球前面的确没有THE） earth’s molten surface with such high temperature （你没有说明HIGH TEMPERATURE 跟你的论点以及作者的论点有什么关系，如果没关系，就范了ARGUMENT 文章固有的一类错误，叫错误定语及状语）as mentioned in the material by（THE） author. Further more, the water created before（BEFORE是个介词，不能用为定语，最好用PRIOR替换） may gradually converged（你有没有理解CONVERGE的意思？一般指目光，道路会聚于“一点”） to large amount which later constitute（这个词这么用不太好。一般CONSTITUTE指几种不同的成分。用PRODUCE，FORM就可以了） the main part of water on earth. If it is true, the speaker’s claim that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comet is unconvincing. （为什么化学反应产生的水就更POSSIBLE？
你用IF IT IS TRUE，说明你对你自己的陈述也是一种假设态度，你可以说MAY来自化学反应，但IF IT IS TRUE 就免了，要不就跟作者的论述方法一样了。）  
Secondly, even if there was not water existing before the comet’s striking, the author’s assertion that comets were the only source of water on the earth is still open to question（赞！）. There is one important uncertain factor which may leads to the total fallacy of author’s assumption----whether the condition in favor of（IN FAVOR OF 一般是赞成一个意见。不要把中文直译过去） the later vaporization of water resulting of the comet’s striking lasted for enough time. It is possible that after several thousand years, the earth’s condition changed drastically and the comets crashing onto earth were kept intact.
   On the other hand, if assuming that the comets could have been vaporized, there is also another question that how about the volume or frequencies of such striking? Were they big （请问PREQUENCY 能用BIG 来形容吗？）enough to leave as much water as possible eventually leading to the formation of ocean? While the speaker tells nothing about this, his/her（这个很好，没有性别歧视） assertion pales when facing his/her own lacking of evidence.
   In conclusion…………….
>>
总体感觉就是论证的不够充分展开，不过限时的情况下也没有办法。当然，这是缺陷。好的就是三个分论点都应该算是原文中最大的缺陷，逐个击破了。但前一阵看到一篇6分的文章，也是三个分论点，但每段都把小的纰漏穿插其中指出，作为大分论点论证补充分的证据。 所以我发现我文章中你认为无关紧要的内容可以结合到你的文章里，也可以有效的使你的文章更丰满。

[ Last edited by skater on 2005-7-21 at 18:38 ]

hustzwjUID: 203387

写的很认真!还没吃饭.待会马上回来!加油!

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Originally posted by skater at 2005-7-20 16:47
回TANGJIHEDE：
。（我的意思是作者的主观臆断，是一个对总体观点的总批。如果是ISSUE ，应该是提出自己的观点对吗？让我们讨论一下。新东方的讲义里有个无端假设）[/colo ...

我觉得你写的多了，就会发现文中有很多主要的错误，而有些前提是不用管他的，否则这就不叫argument了，而是各说各的。很多时候对大前提的讨论是没有对错的，不同人有不同观点；但即使是我同意你的前提，如果你的内在逻辑有问题，那你的问题就是致命的。在有限的时间内谈了很多的前提问题，最后必然没有时间纠正原文的内在逻辑漏洞，考官会觉得你没有抓住要害。

当然，许多arg的前提是有问题的，应该去批。原则我想是这样的：如果作者的前提明显与常识冲突，那就批它；如果他的前提是一个理论，或是没有定论，那就不用管他。

2。plausible。这个词受中文翻译毒害太深。我觉得可以把它当褒义词理解，即，是道理的，是可信的。同意新东方老师的观点。

3。paradoxical fallacy。多谢！

4。present。我觉得作者是在说，如果当时有水的话，（不论是哪儿来的）都会因为高热而蒸发走。

5。“Thirdly, the reducing process of the kinetic energy and gravitational energy w我觉得你好像绕进去了……that was increasing has not been explicitly expounded. It is the prerequisite that the Earth cooled down and the water in gas would coagulate then the rain fell. 不明白（下雨的前提是地球的冷却）”
我觉得这点和上面提的一样，不是主要问题。在有众多问题在场的情况下，这个问题可以忽略。


6。“咦？我的意思是下雨怎么能形成大洋呢” 。a，如果彗星的水足够多，下雨当然可以成海洋，下了几亿年呢……b，如果彗星少，水少，就成不了。所以我说你可以上面多少水来自彗星。


在这里贴作文时对网友的回复都做了回应，但后面的讨论几乎没有了。我想如果你需要和别人讨论的话，最好直接发条消息，否则别人可能忘了改过谁的了。

加油！

有时间帮我看看这篇吧，长度快赶上两个argument了……

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

hustzwjUID: 203387

the arguer commits a paradoxical fallacy（请问你是参照我的还是。。？）

呵呵!不好意思,是你的,好东东要共享嘛!

hustzwjUID: 203387

from skater
that he did（DOSE NOT） not explain whether the water had been existed before the comets' striking（你是假定了地球上本身就有水？）.

没有假定,这里是想说有另外一种可能: 也许地球上本来就有水!而不是来自comets

hustzwjUID: 203387

water came out（这里是不是用WAS ENGENDERED 更地道些？）

金山上的例句:
         To bring into existence; give rise to:
          产生；引起：
          “Every cloud engenders not a storm”(Shakespeare)
          “并非每片云都能生成一场风暴”(莎士比亚)
牛人!!!!佩服!