进军美利坚之泡面8-26作文作业

泡面UID: 2513568

The text states that the giant-impact theory is questionable for three reasons. However, the professor casts doubt on the statement. He makes argument to the three reason respectively.
On the first floor, the professor claims that the disappearance of the marks on the surface of moon is reasonable. The materail proposes that because there is no mark to prove that the Earth was smacked hard ever. Whereas the professor suggests that this impack happened 4,000 mission years ago. During this long period of erosion, the mark on the Earth's surface tend to be lost easily. Thus it is normal that people cannot observe the marks nowadays.
On the second  floor, the professor asserts that the fact that there was no water in the Moon does't denote that there was no water at all. On the contrary, the water maight have been exsited on the moon only because of the collison palnet molten and consequently bring about the increase of the temperature which lead to the evaporation of water ultimately.
On the third floor, the professor insists that the constitutes of the surface of the Moon and the Earth are similar. The stadistic of the density of the Moon is merely the core part. Nevertheless, the surface part of both the two planets are almost the same.
To sum up, for the three reasons that stated in the reading materail, they are refuted by the preofessor totally from three aspects.

liunian1031UID: 2670872

The text states that the giant-impact theory is questionable for three reasons. However, the professor casts doubt on (对sth产生怀疑~学习了~) the statement. He makes argument (应不应该是复数啊~) to the three reason respectively.


On the first floor (确定可以这样用么~我查了半天没查到可以这样用的例子~如果可以麻烦告诉我下哈~), the professor claims that the disappearance of the marks on the surface of moon is reasonable. The materail proposes that because there is no mark to prove that the Earth was smacked hard ever. Whereas the professor suggests that this impack happened 4,000 mission (million) years ago. During this long period of erosion, the mark on the Earth's surface tend to be lost easily. Thus it is normal that people cannot observe the marks nowadays.


On the second  floor, the professor asserts that the fact that there was no water in the Moon does't denote that there was no water at all. On the contrary, the water maight (might) have been exsited on the moon only because of the collison palnet molten and consequently bring about the increase of the temperature which lead to the evaporation of water ultimately.


the third floor, the professor insists that the constitutes of the surface of the Moon and the Earth are similar. The stadistic (这词写错了吧~) of the density of the Moon is merely the core part. Nevertheless, the surface part of both the two planets are almost the same


To sum up, for the three reasons that stated in the reading materail, they are refuted by the preofessor totally from three aspects.

总体这样写应该就行了吧~~我们三个写的core那里貌似都不一样啊……我再听一遍去……
泡面多注意下笔误哈~~不要写错字了~~~

goback211UID: 2419259

红色：错误
蓝色：建议

The text states that the giant-impact theory is questionable for three reasons. However, the professor casts doubt on the statement. He makes argument to the three reason(reasons) respectively.
On the first floor, the professor claims that the disappearance of the marks on the surface of moon is reasonable. The material(说成 reading material吧，还有listening material呢) proposes that because there is no mark to prove that the Earth was smacked hard ever. Whereas the professor suggests that this impack(impact) happened 4,000 mission（mission?不是billion么） years ago. During this long period of erosion, the mark on the Earth's surface tend（tends） to be lost easily. Thus it is normal that people cannot observe the marks nowadays.
On the second floor, the professor asserts that the fact that there was no water in the Moon doesn’t（不要用缩写，呵呵） denote that there was no water at all. On the contrary(觉得前后不是转折啊，而是解释), the water maight(might) have been exsited(existed) on the moon only because of the collison(collision，这个我也写错了…) palnet(planet) molten and consequently bring about the increase of the temperature which lead to the evaporation of water ultimately.（这句没太懂，collision后面的是修饰它的从句么，那样时态也不对啊，应该是第三人称复数形式啊）
On the third floor, the professor insists that the constitutes of the surface of the Moon and the Earth are similar. The stadistic(statistic) of the density of the Moon is merely the core part. Nevertheless, the surface parts of both the two planets are almost the same.（理由我也没听清…）
To sum up, for the three reasons that stated in the reading material, they are refuted by the professor totally from three aspects.

留下时间检查拼写和时态吧，呵呵，好多字写错了，注意时态的一致，我也经常犯这种毛病…
第二、三段我觉得还是提一下reading比较好，可以只加一句which is mentioned in the reading 或者according to the reading. 不提总觉得对比性没体现出来
其余还好，文笔不错，词语用的很妙，呵呵，我经常重复用词，你基本上没有