argument50希望自己每一篇都有进步。

AlexandraUID: 185174

<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."


提纲：
1：撞击时间——在地球有很大的引力后， 有彗星撞击地球？
2：地球引力——承认有彗星的作用，但是撞击地球产生的热量使水 挥发， 跟 地球引力对水的吸引力相比， 哪个大？  
3：其他的原因——如化学反应，像氢跟氧元素直接反应生成水， 或者其他的 化学反应，产生副产品-- 水

没有限时 写作。
郁闷中，（1） 越写越觉得 自己就会 说这几句话， 希望哪个 兄弟姐妹能把个别句子改改。（2） 严重超时，因为写这篇时，边写边想 怎么写句子——其实，我也不想这样的， 结果， 后来还进行了大大的修改。后来发现没有写提纲，离题了， 重新写！！ 晕， 气 死了，  这下， 更郁闷了。。。。。。:L:L:L

The author alleges that Earth’s oceans water has originated from comets by giving some analysis and some evidence. Credible as it is on the surface, closer inspection will divulge the hidden flaws in several respects in the argument.

Primarily, the author fails to render that what time these comets struck Earth and how many comets impinge against the planet after Earth has the gravitation strong enough to hold the gases and water vapor around it. Lacking any efficient evidence in the argument to support the assumption that there were comets striking the Earth while this planet has great gravitation, it is largely possible that there has not comet striking the Earth with strong gravitation. In this case, it can hardly to say that the water in Earth's oceans are the result of the comets striking Earth. Hence the conclusion in the last paragraph is unpersuasive.
  
Next, even though there were many comets impacted Earth when Earth has its atmosphere. The author is wrong to elicit that when the comets striking Earth its frozen water and gases would vapor by the heat from collision and retained in the Earth atmosphere and then fell on the surface of the Earth in the form of rain. Nevertheless, whether the heat from the gravitation is stronger than that from the collision between comets and Earth is open to doubt. Perhaps, of the two the latter is far stronger than the former, and under this possibility the water vapor from comets in the collision would gone off into space. Consequently, the assumption is unreliable merely based on the evidence contained above.

Additionally, the author neglects some other possibilities can be explained the origin of the Earth’s oceans water. A possibility cannot be ruling out that the water in the Earth's oceans was from the element chemical actions between oxygen and hydrogen. What is more, the water also can be the by-product came from chemical changes of some other elements. Without taking these or others reasons into account and exerting solid facts to demonstrate the assumption, it is reckless to indicate the water vapor and gases in the comet are the factors of forming the Earth's oceans.

As discussed above, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans has originated form comets striking the Earth. Only if the author elicits more effective evidence to support it and make sure the comets’ water and gases are significance factors of the origination of the oceans water in Earth, can the conclusion be more reliable.

echostateUID: 194935

"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."


提纲：
1：撞击时间——在地球有很大的引力后， 有彗星撞击地球？
2：地球引力——承认有彗星的作用，但是撞击地球产生的热量使水 挥发， 跟 地球引力对水的吸引力相比， 哪个大？  
3：其他的原因——如化学反应，像氢跟氧元素直接反应生成水， 或者其他的 化学反应，产生副产品-- 水

没有限时 写作。
郁闷中，（1） 越写越觉得 自己就会 说这几句话， 希望哪个 兄弟姐妹能把个别句子改改。（2） 严重超时，因为写这篇时，边写边想 怎么写句子——其实，我也不想这样的， 结果， 后来还进行了大大的修改。后来发现没有写提纲，离题了， 重新写！！ 晕， 气 死了，  这下， 更郁闷了。。。。。。

The author alleges that Earth’s oceans water has originated from comets by giving some analysis and some evidence. Credible as it is on the surface, closer inspection will divulge the hidden flaws in several respects in the argument. [赫赫，经典的让步句式噢，adj + as + S + be, ……，而且我个人比较赞同简洁似的开头——毕竟there is not any solid evidence to indicate that费很多笔墨复述作者的论据可以加分~~~~~]

Primarily, the author fails to render [你的词汇很新，不错。但是，是否确定美国佬习惯这么用呢？我是不敢直接把一个常用词的同义词也当作常用词的：P] that what time these comets struck Earth and how many comets impinge against the planet after Earth has the gravitation strong enough to hold the gases and water vapor around it. Lacking any efficient evidence in the argument to support the assumption that there were comets striking the Earth while this planet has great gravitation, it is largely possible that there has not comet striking the Earth with strong gravitation [这句话有问题，它容易被意思是：没有彗星带着强大的引力撞击地球~~~~可以换一个表达方式嘛——比如“所以的撞击都发生在地球具有足够的重力以前”]. In this case, it [这里不好，这个it指什么？首先是指代不清。其次，这里的it容易被理解成this argument，这就搞笑了。所以，直接写the author] can hardly to say that the water in Earth's oceans are the result of the comets striking Earth. Hence the conclusion in the last paragraph is unpersuasive[觉得这句多余，没话找话吧？凑字数？字数有啥用！].
  
Next, even though [even given/granted that] there were many comets impacted Earth when Earth has its atmosphere[不是has its atomshpere，应该说得更直接一点，“地球有能力形成它的atmosphere”]. The author is wrong [is wrong to do，觉得不是很地道：P] to elicit [elicit，用在这里挺新颖的，但是有一点——要保证这确实是英文的习惯用法] that when the comets striking Earth its frozen water and gases would vapor by the heat from collision and retained in the Earth atmosphere and then fell on the surface of the Earth in the form of rain. Nevertheless, whether the heat from the gravitation is stronger than that from the collision between comets and Earth is open to doubt [这句话没懂，为什么一定要前者的heat比后者大呢？万有引力吸引蒸发的水分和heat有什么关系？实际上，此处应该质疑的是——地球表面有可能已经冷了~~~]. Perhaps, of the two the latter is far stronger than the former, and under this possibility the water vapor from comets in the collision would gone off into space. Consequently, the assumption is unreliable merely based on the evidence contained above.

Additionally, the author neglects some other possibilities can be explained the origin of the Earth’s oceans water. A possibility cannot be ruling out [is] that the water in the Earth's oceans was from the element chemical actions between oxygen and hydrogen. What is more, the water also can be the by-product came from chemical changes of some other elements. Without taking these or others reasons into account and exerting [exert fact to do sth，古怪噢：P] solid facts to demonstrate the assumption, it is reckless to indicate the water vapor and gases in the comet are the factors of forming the Earth's oceans.

As discussed above, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans has [is] originated form [from] comets striking the Earth [the striking between comets and the Earth]. Only if the author elicits more effective evidence to support it and make sure the comets’ water and gases are significance factors of the origination of the oceans water in Earth, can the conclusion be more reliable.

[逻辑上还是可以的。列举他因是，越详细越好，越具体越好。语言方面，你的词汇很新颖，如果可以保证是美国人接受的用法的话，很不错。建议你看看美国人写的argument，比如老外280，虽然那上面的巨型都被用烂了，但是美国人写东西的流畅感是值得学习的。]

echostateUID: 194935

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=315987
互相鼓劲，最后几天拼了~

mikechsUID: 2121753

出现点状况，看着不舒服就看附件把

argument50希望自己每一篇都有进步。<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."提纲：1：撞击时间——在地球有很大的引力后， 有彗星撞击地球？2：地球引力——承认有彗星的作用，但是撞击地球产生的热量使水 挥发， 跟 地球引力对水的吸引力相比， 哪个大？  3：其他的原因——如化学反应，像氢跟氧元素直接反应生成水， 或者其他的 化学反应，产生副产品-- 水没有限时 写作。 郁闷中，（1） 越写越觉得 自己就会 说这几句话， 希望哪个 兄弟姐妹能把个别句子改改。（2） 严重超时，因为写这篇时，边写边想 怎么写句子——其实，我也不想这样的， 结果， 后来还进行了大大的修改。后来发现没有写提纲，离题了， 重新写！！ 晕， 气 死了，  这下， 更郁闷了。。。。。。   改之前也要先说一下，这篇文章我认为很难耶因为我是学物理的，对地球早期环境多少有些了解，可是我读这题的时候越读越通，向教科书上的没什么区别，呵呵，当时就晕了。不过还是写了份提纲，不好，参考一下就可以了：1．        按照彗星撞击理论，先沸腾的应是表面。2．        在说明引力理论的时候，需要进一步可靠的计算。3．        彗星的水是否足以产生海洋。4．        下雨的过程需要证明。你能写出这么好的提纲，我很钦佩The author alleges that Earth’s oceans water has originated from comets by giving some analysis and some evidence. Credible as it is on the surface, closer inspection will divulge the hidden flaws in several respects in the argument.（新东方的老师说要罗列证据呀，不知你是怎么想的？）Primarily, the author fails to render that what time these comets struck Earth and how many comets impinge against the planet after Earth has the gravitation strong enough to hold the gases and water vapor around it. （这句读得我好痛苦，不过没什么错）Lacking any efficient evidence in the argument to support the assumption that there were comets striking the Earth while this planet has great gravitation, it is largely possible that there has not comet striking the Earth with strong gravitation. In this case, it can hardly to say that the water in Earth's oceans are the result of the comets striking Earth. Hence the conclusion in the last paragraph is unpersuasive. (这段好像无据攻击呀，T.S. –Lacking- In that case- Thus不知是不是应下移)  Next, even though there were many comets impacted Earth when Earth has its atmosphere. The author is wrong to elicit that when the comets striking Earth its frozen water and gases would vapor by the heat from collision and retained in the Earth atmosphere and then fell on the surface of the Earth in the form of rain. Nevertheless, whether the heat from the gravitation is stronger than that from the collision between comets and Earth is open to doubt. Perhaps, of the two the latter is far stronger than the former, and under this possibility the water vapor from comets in the collision would gone off into space. Consequently, the assumption is unreliable merely based on the evidence contained above.(这段看了三遍才看懂，我是越来越不行了，不知为什么你现在也开始写长句了？我觉得你讲得很有道理，句式应建立在分析基础上，总之看得不舒服)Additionally, the author neglects some other possibilities can be explained the origin of the Earth’s oceans water. A possibility cannot be ruling out that the water in the Earth's oceans was from the element chemical actions between oxygen and hydrogen. What is more, the water also can be the by-product came from chemical changes of some other elements. Without taking these or others reasons into account and exerting solid facts to demonstrate the assumption, it is reckless to indicate the water vapor and gases in the comet are the factors of forming the Earth's oceans.（这段写得很标准，鼓励一个）As discussed above, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans has originated form comets striking the Earth. Only if the author elicits more effective evidence to support it and make sure the comets’ water and gases are significance factors of the origination of the oceans water in Earth, can the conclusion be more reliable. 个人认为，你三段论证不充分，毕竟很难用三句话解释两个问题还有就是语言问题，句式我没法帮你换（还没开始背，不好意思啦）。不过不知你的长句是不是有点过多吧。这是我的第一篇ARGU，希望能提些意见好改正定型。https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=317683the Earth with strong gravitation. In this case, it can hardly to say that the water in Earth's oceans are the result of the comets striking Earth. Hence the conclusion in the last paragraph is unpersuasive. (这段好像无据攻击呀，T.S. –Lacking- In that case- Thus不知是不是应下移)  Next, even though there were many comets impacted Earth when Earth has its atmosphere. The author is wrong to elicit that when the comets striking Earth its frozen water and gases would vapor by the heat from collision and retained in the Earth atmosphere and then fell on the surface of the Earth in the form of rain. Nevertheless, whether the heat from the gravitation is stronger than that from the collision between comets and Earth is open to doubt. Perhaps, of the two the latter is far stronger than the former, and under this possibility the water vapor from comets in the collision would gone off into space. Consequently, the assumption is unreliable merely based on the evidence contained above.(这段看了三遍才看懂，我是越来越不行了，不知为什么你现在也开始写长句了？我觉得你讲得很有道理，句式应建立在分析基础上，总之看得不舒服)Additionally, the author neglects some other possibilities can be explained the origin of the Earth’s oceans water. A possibility cannot be ruling out that the water in the Earth's oceans was from the element chemical actions between oxygen and hydrogen. What is more, the water also can be the by-product came from chemical changes of some other elements. Without taking these or others reasons into account and exerting solid facts to demonstrate the assumption, it is reckless to indicate the water vapor and gases in the comet are the factors of forming the Earth's oceans.（这段写得很标准，鼓励一个）As discussed above, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans has originated form comets striking the Earth. Only if the author elicits more effective evidence to support it and make sure the comets’ water and gases are significance factors of the origination of the oceans water in Earth, can the conclusion be more reliable. 个人认为，你三段论证不充分，毕竟很难用三句话解释两个问题还有就是语言问题，句式我没法帮你换（还没开始背，不好意思啦）。不过不知你的长句是不是有点过多吧。这是我的第一篇ARGU，希望能提些意见好改正定型。https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=317683

AlexandraUID: 185174

to  echostate—— 恩谢谢你的修改， 我发现了一些问题， 但是有一个地方我要指出，
render 这个 单词， 我没有记错的话， 是从 《北美范文》学来的。

to  mikechs (Garfield) ——谢谢你的修改， 有几个地方想跟你讨论，看附件：

echostateUID: 194935

我记得，北美范文里用的比较常见的是，render it unconvincnig...之类的
这里取得意思是：致使。

但是，你的那个，呵呵，应该去的是“呈现、展现”的意思吧？这个常用否？
北美我没有全看。所以可能不是很清楚。

AlexandraUID: 185174

哦 我回头 再 查查  谢谢你哦
很仔细  啊


你的文章 我晚饭后回