Argument50 速写,求拍...

g.10.fightingUID: 2347826

TOPIC: ARGUMENT50 - 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."
WORDS: 360          TIME: 00:26:21          DATE: 2007-8-6 21:03:39

This argument seems like a scientific article, yet, there are so many falsest in it, the arguer use not sure evidence to conclude funny views. Causal problems are easy to see in it.

First of all, the arguer thinks the earth formed by collision of space rocks, but false to prove comets hit. There are too many rocks and comets in the out space, if any two of them collision, they can form an earth. There will be many earths. For earth's root, till know, scientists do not offer the exactly evidence to prove its form, how arguer forms his view without any data and facts?

Second, the arguer claims that two space collision, they can form atmosphere to hold gases and water vapor, but till now, no evidence can proved any water vapor or gases in the comets; no seeds, how harvest come from? no form rain factors and environment, how to rain? This is a serious problem.

Third, the arguer point that the rain formed the oceans, however, as I have said in the second point the rain's form is not exactly, why can he lead to the ocean originated from comets? Whether comets surface have water vapor is still a secret.

Last not the least, the arguer use wrong fact, give us the not scientist evidence. All his views are groundless without exactly evidence. Like he said he scare one thing, he just describe how he is afraid of, it is useless; he should give us vivid pictures about the thing. We cannon imagine what happened, the same as the arguer, he just offers us some rags, and we cannot connect them together. Not sure fact does not bring out right result.

To conclusion, as we all know, to write an scientific article must have serious evidence, exact data, wholly research process. But all these necessaries we can't find in this article, through my above finding, so many mistakes the arguer makes. Not true evidence lead wrong guess, wrong guess lead new research, new research lead false result..., causal problem bring bad cycle. So I strongly believe that the arguer should do deep research about the earth's oceans origination.

shalonbasUID: 2184474

[By shalonbas]

This argument seems like a scientific article, yet, there are so many falsest in it, the arguer use not sure evidence to conclude funny views. [很简洁的开头，我喜欢，不过最好注意一下语法。] Causal problems are easy to see in it. [如果这里说是causal problem，那意味着后面都是这种错误。但如果我没理解错的话，本文还讲了很多其他问题如缺少证据，前后不符，所以最好把这句改得更一般更全面些。][另外，我的感觉是即使你觉得出题者的思路很弱智，也应该保持客观地就事论事，象funny，easy这种带有明显感情色彩的词还是尽量少用为好，呵呵。]

First of all, the arguer thinks the earth formed by collision of space rocks, but false to prove comets hit. There are too many rocks and comets in the out[outer?] space, if any two of them collision [collide], they can form an earth. There will be many earths. For earth's root, till know, [till now?] scientists do not offer the exactly evidence to prove its form, how arguer forms his view without any data and facts? [攻击地球成因]

Second, the arguer claims that two space collision, they can form atmosphere to hold gases and water vapor, but till now, no evidence can proved [prove] any water vapor or gases in the comets; no seeds, how harvest come from? no form rain factors and environment, how to rain? This is a serious problem. [彗星是否有水还有待证明]

Third, the arguer point that the rain formed the oceans, however, as I have said in the second point the rain's form is not exactly, why can he lead to the ocean originated from comets? Whether comets surface have water vapor is still a secret. [如果海不是由降雨所形成，则没有意义]

Last not the least, the arguer use wrong fact, give us the not scientist evidence. All his views are groundless without exactly [exact] evidence. Like he said he scare one thing, he just describe how he is afraid of, it is useless; he should give us vivid pictures about the thing. We cannon [can not] imagine what happened, the same as the arguer, he just offers us some rags, and we cannot connect them together. [我觉得这句话放在这里不好，相当伤RP，考官也许会觉得问题问题就是出在考生的理解能力上。] Not sure fact does not bring out right result.

To conclusion [conclude], as we all know, to write an [a] scientific article must have serious evidence, exact data, wholly research process. But all these necessaries we can't find in this article, through my above finding, so many mistakes the arguer makes. Not true evidence lead wrong guess, wrong guess lead new research, new research lead false result..., causal problem bring bad cycle. [一句话，作者一无是处，呵呵] So I strongly believe that the arguer should do deep research about the earth's oceans origination.


[从逻辑结构上我已经把本文的主要攻击点标出来了，怎么说呢，虽然我不认为这样写是最合理的方式，但也不确定哪种才是更好的思路，所以这方面我就不说什么了，楼主如果有兴趣的话，欢迎来指教一下我的习作，大家讨论讨论。地址：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1770678986

下面主要说说本文语言吧，大概是写得仓促的缘故，里面很多的用法不太准确。不过我更深刻的感觉是本文的语言风格很中文化，比如总结段的第一句
To conclusion [conclude], as we all know, to write an [a] scientific article must have serious evidence, exact data, wholly research process.

第二段的第一句
First of all, the arguer thinks the earth formed by collision of space rocks, but false to prove comets hit.

所以，在语言方面我建议就是尽量能写得地道一些，至于其他地方出现的小错误则靠细心来纠正了，呵呵。

个人意见，欢迎讨论。]