Argument50 Exe3

半妖UID: 2328063

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: 339          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-3-1 上午 01:21:35
The arguer claims that the water in Earth's oceans have originated from comets. This assumption does seem reasonable in first glance. Since if a comet covered by ice struck Earth, its surface will  molten and therefore the ice will be evaporated and finally form the ocean. However, after a second thought, the deduction is actually in cogent in several steps.

First of all, the arguer unjustly assumes that all the water on the surface of Earth is evaporated and then gone off into space before its gravitation is large enough to hold the water vapor around it. Since no evidence about how much water existed on Earth in ancient time, it is entirely possible that there is large amount of water. If true, some water may not go off into space which eventually forms oceans today as well. Without ruling out this and other possibilities, this argument is problematic and vulnerable.

Even granted that no water exists on Earth 's surface until its gravitation large enough to hold water vapor, the arguer overlooks the possibilities that other celestial objects covered by ice may strike Earth as well. Manipulate of other alternatives should be taken into account. For example, meteorites with ice have struck Earth and thus is responsible for the water in oceans too. And there is a good chance the scenario above happened since 70% of Earth's surface is covered by ocean and comets are too small subjects to carry so much ice regardless of numerous amount of them. Unless all these possible explanations are ruled out, the arguer can not convince us that it is comets' ice that the water in ocean have originated from.

Moreover, no evidence provided suffice to support the idea that water can only formed from water vapor. Other possible explanations, such as biological reaction should be considered as a valid resource. Moreover, oxygen and hydrogen also can be able to produce water during a chemical reaction. Absent of more specific information, the arguer fail to substantiate the claim that water in ocean is originated from comets.

In conclusion, the argument does appear to be persuasive on surface while a careful scrutiny reveals that it is unconvincing. To better support the assumption, the arguer should provide that enough collisions have happened and no other resource of celestial objects struck Earth. In addition, more thoroughly and complex investigation is needed before the arguer draw the assumption.

JourloveUID: 2462205

【指出了几处，不知对否，再交流】【红色表示建议】【蓝色表示添加】
The arguer claims that the water in Earth's oceans have originated from comets. This assumption(I think it is not assumption but the author'claim) does seem reasonable in first glance. Since(it is incoherent) if a comet covered by ice struck Earth, its surface will  molten and therefore the ice will be evaporated and finally form the ocean. However, after a second thought, the deduction is actually in cogent(inconvincible) in several steps.

First of all, the arguer unjustly assumes that all the water on the surface of Earth is evaporated and then gone off into space before its gravitation is large enough to hold the water vapor around it. Since no evidence about how much water existed on Earth in ancient time, it is entirely possible that there is large amount of water on the surface of Earth. If true, even thouth Earth's surface is very hot, some water may not go off into space which eventually forms oceans today as well. Without ruling out this and other possibilities, this argument is problematic and vulnerable.

Even granted that no water exists on Earth 's surface until its gravitation large enough to hold water vapor, the arguer overlooks the possibilities that other celestial objects covered by ice may strike Earth as well. Manipulate of other alternatives should be taken into account. For example, meteorites with ice have struck Earth and thus is responsible for the water in oceans too. And there is a good chance the scenario above happened since 70% of Earth's surface is covered by ocean and comets are too small subjects(Is it a assumption?) to carry so much ice regardless of numerous amount of them. Unless all these possible explanations are ruled out, the arguer can not convince us that it is comets' ice that the water in ocean have originated from.

Moreover, no evidence provided suffice to support the idea that the water on Earth's ocean can only formed from water vapor. Other possible explanations, such as biological reaction should be considered as a valid resource. Moreover, oxygen and hydrogen also can be able to produce water during a chemical reaction. Absent of more specific information, the arguer fail to substantiate the claim that water in ocean is originated from comets.

In conclusion, the argument does appear to be persuasive on surface while a careful scrutiny reveals that it is unconvincing. To better support the assumption, the arguer should provide that enough collisions have happened and no other resource of celestial objects struck Earth. In addition, more thoroughly and complex investigation is needed before the arguer draw the assumption.