argument50 同主题,也是第三篇阿狗,大家拍啊拍

11yvetteUID：2102418

----题目----
50From 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 manuscript get to the conclusion that the Earth's oceans must came from the collision of comets and Earth. I do highly doubt about the assertion made by the author through so-called reasons.

Firstly, what compound comets are still unknown to us. Though the author says that they are ice made up of frozen water and gases, which is still a hypothesis established in 1950 by an American astronomer, it has not been verified yet. Another American astronomer acclaimed that the composition of comets are rocks and other organic compounds this year in April, which is also a hypothesis to be proved. In the Independence Day NASA successfully conducted the mission Deep Impact with the spacecraft impacting into the comet Temple 1. One of the scientists' purposes is to determine the composition of comets by the depth of the crater: whether the comets are dirty snowballs or compound with hard organic material like rocks. We including the author have not realized the real composition of the comets, hastily concluding that the water in Earth came from comets seems greatly ungrounded.

Secondly, the manuscript assumes that the collisions caused the water retain in Earth. Though we concede that the comets are largely made up of frozen water and gases, the author provide no evidence to support this is the case, nor does he or she establish a causal relationship between the condition and the conclusion. If the gravitation was less powerful than the collisional energy, then the water and gases exploded from comets would entirely vaporized to the outer space rather than hold by Earth to form the ocean. The failure of the author to offer such significant necessity makes the manuscript vulnerable.

Moreover, if we acquiesce that the gravitation is much stronger than the collisional energy, and the water was really retain in Earth, however, we still do not know the times of the collisions and the strength of the collisions. As the Earth's oceans take almost 71 percent of the Earth's area, there should be collide how many times to accumulate such large quantity of water, the diameter of The Comet Temple 1 is only 6 kilometers, I've heard that some small comets only 12 meters in diameter. The author should make the data of the times of collisions and the strength of the collisions transparent to the readers to prove the conclusion, otherwise, it is unacceptable.

In sum, the author fails to demonstrate the composition of the comets and provide evidence of the contrast of the gravitation and the collisional energy, the manuscript is unconvincing as it stands.

这篇专业性也太强了吧~~~不知道频率如何呢?
也找了很多的资料看,作准备,终于写了430words,是argument写作以来最短的一篇了,还望大家拍,留链接互拍~~

11yvetteUID：2102418

再提一提吧
要不然被淹得太厉害了
大家给点意见指点指点啊~~~

lignumvitaeUID：207532

The manuscript gets to the conclusion that the Earth's oceans must camecome from the collision of comets and Earth. I do highly doubt about the assertion made by the author throughbased on是不是好点 so-called reasons.

Firstly, what compound comets are still unknown to us.这句我不太懂，你是想说我们还不清楚彗星是由什么组成的么 Though the author says that they are ice made up of frozen water and gases, which is still a hypothesis established in 1950 by an American astronomer, it has not been verified yet. Another American astronomer acclaimed that the composition of comets are rocks and other organic compounds this year in April, which is also a hypothesis to be proved.未证实的吧 In the Independence Day NASA successfully conducted the mission Deep Impact with the spacecraft impacting into the comet Temple 1. One of the scientists' purposes is to determine the composition of comets by the depth of the crater: whether the comets are dirty snowballs or compound with hard organic material like rocks. We including the author have not realized the real composition of the comets, hastily concluding that the water in Earth came from comets seems greatly ungrounded.哇～专业知识好多，干脆还可以说：说不定既不是雪球，也不是岩石，是什么金属、有机体等等都有可能:P

Secondly, the manuscript assumes that the collisions caused the water retain in Earth. ThoughEven if we concede that the comets are largely made up of frozen water and gases, the author provide no evidence to support this is the case,前面这半句还是说的上段的论点吧 nor does he or she establish a causal relationship between the condition and the conclusion. 用个Even if 基于前段假设成立直接说这段要批的吧If the gravitation was less powerful than the collisional energy, then the water and gases exploded from comets would entirely vaporized vaporize to the outer space rather than be hold by Earth to form the ocean. The failure of the author to offer such ??significant necessity makes the manuscript vulnerable.The author fails to rule out this possibility, which makes the manuscript vulnerable.

Moreover, if we acquiesce that the gravitation is much stronger than the collisional energy when comets stroke the earth, and the water was really retain in Earth, however, we still do not know the times of the collisions and the strength of the collisions. As the Earth's oceans take almost 71 percent of the Earth's area, there should be collide how many times 觉得怪怪，却不知道怎么改好to accumulate such large quantity of water, the diameter of The Comet Temple 1 is only 6 kilometers, I've heard that some small comets only 12 meters in diameter. The author should make get the data of the times of collisions and the strength of the collisions transparent to the readers 不太懂？？　to　prove the conclusion, otherwise, it is unacceptable.to用多了就换个in order to,还能增加字数

In sum, the author fails to demonstrate the composition of the comets and provide evidence of the contrast of the gravitation and the collisional energy, and the manuscript is unconvincing as it stands.

wow~~被我改成了这样，还有一点，论者没有提到其他可能给地球带来水的情况
有不同观点，期待交流！

同拍这篇好了,3Q
argument50https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=300171&extra=page%3D2

[ Last edited by lignumvitae on 2005-7-15 at 00:40 ]

chenda8201UID：171368

----题目----
50From 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 manuscript get to the conclusion that the Earth's oceans must came from the collision of comets and Earth. I do highly doubt about the assertion made by the author through so-called reasons.

Firstly, what compound comets are still unknown to us. Though the author says that they are ice made up of frozen water and gases, which is still a hypothesis established in 1950 by an American astronomer, it has not been verified yet. Another American astronomer acclaimed that the composition of comets are rocks and other organic compounds this year in April, which is also a hypothesis to be proved. In the Independence Day NASA successfully conducted the mission Deep Impact with the spacecraft impacting into the comet Temple 1. One of the scientists' purposes is to determine the composition of comets by the depth of the crater: whether the comets are dirty snowballs or compound with hard organic material like rocks. We including the author have not realized the real composition of the comets, hastily concluding that the water in Earth came from comets seems greatly ungrounded.
[这段话有点像issue中的论证，比较新颖～；不过argument的问题就是提出多种其他的可能性来驳斥对方的假设及推论等。这种列举实例的方法是否可行呢？上面这样写，看起来也是可以吧；不过，这点即the compound of the comets are still unknown to us human beings不是主要矛盾，而且，comets上有水的成分（冰的形式）这个应该得到证实了吧；当然我不敢十分肯定～]

Secondly, the manuscript assumes that the collisions caused the water retain in Earth. Though we concede that the comets are largely made up of frozen water and gases, the author provide no evidence to support this is the case, nor does he or she establish a causal relationship between the condition and the conclusion. If the gravitation was less powerful than the collisional energy, then the water and gases exploded from comets would entirely vaporized to the outer space rather than [be] hold by Earth to form the ocean. The failure of the author to offer such significant necessity makes the manuscript vulnerable.

Moreover, if we acquiesce that the gravitation is much stronger than the collisional energy, and the water was really retain in Earth, however, we still do not know the times of the collisions and the strength of the collisions. As the Earth's oceans take almost 71 percent of the Earth's area, there should be collide how many times to accumulate such large quantity of water, the diameter of The Comet Temple 1 is only 6 kilometers, I've heard that some small comets only 12 meters in diameter. The author should make the data of the times of collisions and the strength of the collisions transparent to the readers to prove the conclusion, [;] otherwise, it is unacceptable.

In sum, the author fails to demonstrate the composition of the comets and provide evidence of the contrast of the gravitation and the collisional energy, [and the times and frequency of the collision happen between Comets and The Earth.] Therefore, the manuscript is unconvincing as it stands.
[The arguer 没有考虑水有可能的其他来源，这点也是很需要驳斥的，也是此篇argument中的主要矛盾之一，这里没有提到就不好了～]

也找了很多的资料看,作准备,终于写了430words,是argument写作以来最短的一篇了…

[大概就是因为作者看了很多资料，结果写出来有些issue的味道吧～
语句方面写得不错啊～
我想，只要把错误揪出来批，驳斥有力度，也就可以吧]

11yvetteUID：2102418

to lignumvitae：

Originally posted by lignumvitae at 2005-7-15 00:22
what compound comets are still unknown to us.这句我不太懂，你是想说我们还不清楚彗星是由什么组成的么

写完检查也觉得这句话特别扭，你看用what substances compound the comets is still unkown to us这句明白吗？或者说地道么？

未证实的吧

的确是想表达有待证实的意思啊，to be proved

there should be collide how many times 觉得怪怪，却不知道怎么改好

看看这样行不：there must be a good many times' collision to accumulate the large quantity of water.....

还有一点，论者没有提到其他可能给地球带来水的情况

这个是一直想到有，但是写着写着，觉得没有什么地方可以插入来写其他形成地球上水的原因了，所以就放弃了


谢谢wood拉~~~
改得那么仔细，我感觉在语言方面真的是太菜的说
也看过你的那篇了，赞啊~~

11yvetteUID：2102418

to chenda8201：

Originally posted by chenda8201 at 2005-7-15 07:51
这段话有点像issue中的论证

不经你提醒，我都还没有注意到呢，呵呵，其实我只是想能深入分析就尽量深入一点，arg的范文也才看了几篇，我会再多学多练，写得地道些~~

Originally posted by chenda8201 at 2005-7-15 07:51
The arguer 没有考虑水有可能的其他来源，这点也是很需要驳斥的

这点我会在修改的时候尽量加进去驳斥，谢谢提点啦~~~~

lignumvitaeUID：207532

第一句你是想说组成么，compound的意思是混合、填加，用makeup好了
未证实应该是unproved啊
继续拍拍...

bridgewalkerUID：208595

"Comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases"
应该当成ETS提供的既定前提，不属于推论范围，似乎不应该用一些专业知识、理论来进行攻击。

所以，个人认为楼主的b1是不是该删掉？

一家之言！

11yvetteUID：2102418

这个观点果然比较新颖啊~~~
暂时没想好如果b1不要了,那文章不是更短了么?
主要是感觉这次深度撞击目的之一就是探测彗星的实际组成
那么这个题目中所给的论断就是可以拿来置疑的

呵呵,我也只是想有多一个错误来写,要不然真是太难了啊~~~
欢迎讨论~~
谢谢bridgewalker:handshake

peacockUID：2114612

Originally posted by bridgewalker at 2005-7-18 21:34
"Comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases"
应该当成ETS提供的既定前提，不属于推论范围，似乎不应该用一些专业知识、理论来进行攻击。

所以，个人认为楼主的b1是不是该删掉？
...

同意bridgewalker
孙远黑皮里讲到，
assumption是攻击的重点。
要区分conclusion, assumption and evidence.
阿狗的重点是讨论作者的证据与这些假设之间的关系，看看这些假设是否都得到有力支持
我觉得"Comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases"是evidence
和bridgewalker的既定前提是一个意思。
[ps]
也是一家之言，我水平真的不高。
上面的话都是直接从书上抄来的，
希望能和大家共同努力吧

[ Last edited by peacock on 2005-7-20 at 09:53 ]