argument50 自己觉得还可以,泼我冷水吧~！

19831983UID: 2107923

nt50  第10篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！(已修改)
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：35分27秒     352 words
从2005年6月26日16时10分到2005年6月26日16时35分
------题目------
From a draft textbook manuscript submitted to a publisher. Argume
'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------
In the draft textbook the arguer draw a conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans must have sprung from comets, to substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that the gravitation helps to hold the gases and water vapor as an atmosphere and the comet made up of frozen water and gases vaporized when it struck the earth. Moreover, water vapor finally fell as rain on the surface of the earth. Close scrutiny reveals, however the argument suffers from a series of critical fallacies rendering it unpersuasive.

As the threshold problem the arguer fails to provide information concerning the earth temperature, and I have a sound reason to query the possibility that the temperature on the surface of the earth is high enough to melt the comet made up of the frozen water and gases. If the temperature on the earth surface is lower than the temperature, which can contribute to the vaporization of the comet, the water in ocean on earth cannot come from the comet. Unless the argument embraces further information associated with the exact temperature of the earth, the arguer cannot convince me to accept its conclusion.

Secondly, the arguer takes for granted and without justification that the comet striking the earth is the only explanation of the water in Earth's oceans, and in fact other possibilities can also be attributable to the formation of the water on earth. It is possible that the water on the earth formed as a result of the chemical elements change during millions of the years, which has been supported by some expert scientists in the academic world. Another alternative explanation is that the volcanoes burst out and the vapor arising cooled down which form the water on the earth ultimately. there are myriad of contingences  regarding this controversial issue, without reliable evidence and information, the argument lend scant credence to the conclusion towards which i hold a skeptical attitude.

Finally the arguer unfairly assumes that there are definitely some comets striking the earth, if this prerequisite cannot be guaranteed, the following deduction in the argument amounts to nonsense.
Granted that the assumption is a factual thing, the argument also lacks further information including the number of the comets striking on the earth, therefore it is entirely possible that the number of comets whose frozen water and gases through vaporization come into being the water on the earth are not enough to form the oceans on the earth. Having failed to offer specific information and evidence buttress the assumption, the conclusion drawn in the argument is open to doubt.

In sum the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer has to furnish us with the detailed information related to the condition of the comets and the earth in the process of the water formation, additionally the arguer must rule out other likelihood and demonstrate the origination of the water in Earth’ ocean. To better evaluate the argument, we would also call for thorough consideration and analysis relevant to this problem.