2009进军美利坚作文8.26 我是翠花

我是chineseladyUID: 2662783

8.26的, 天天迟到呐...该打...

The passage demonstrates that the giant-impact theory is in doubt as the evidence is not strong enough to support that theory. However, the professor shows his perspectives with more details in the lecture.

To begin with, the article shows that there should be a trace on the surface of the world if the impact really happened. So without the mark on it how can prove the huge collision took place. The lecture supports the view that the impact happened around 4 billions years ago. During such a long time and changing on the earth, probably the collision mark is disappeared. Therefore, it cannot say that gain-impact did not show up.

The author also advocates that both material from the Moon and the earth should be the same due to from one planet. The professor asserts because of high temperature on the Moon, it is reasonable to believe that the substances do not contain any water. As we know, the temperature is very different between the earth and the moon.

The passage shows that the density of the Moon is quite different from the earth. But the professor supports that the density of the Moon is same with surface of the earth. And the core should not be compared with the earth's due to it is the surface of the earth that composes of the Moon. Therefore, the professor refutes the views from article with stronger theory.

machi730UID: 2672537

The passage demonstrates that the giant-impact theory is in doubt as the evidence is not strong enough to support that theory. However, the professor shows his perspectives with more details in the lecture.

第一段只说了教授用细节表明观点 却没有明确指出教授到底是赞同还是反对文章观点 我觉得这是个比较大的问题

To begin with, the article shows that there should be a trace on the surface of the world（说Earth比较明确） if the impact really happened. So without the mark on it how can prove the huge collision took place. （这个句子好像不大通啊）The lecture supports the view that the impact happened around 4 billions years ago. During such a long time and changing on the earth, probably the collision mark is（was？） disappeared. Therefore, it cannot say（prove比较合适say应该用被动而且不正式） that gain-impact did not show up（take place可能会更好一些）.! Z# O" R& B( U8 h+ l6 |$ |8 ]

; j( X# F3 \2 ~; T0 g0 J
The author also advocates that both material from the Moon and the earth should be the same due to from one planet. The professor asserts （that）because of （the）high temperature on the Moon, it is reasonable to believe that the substances do not contain any water. As we know, the temperature is very different between the earth and the moon.
（这个观点说的不清楚 教授说的不是月球和地球温度不同所以水蒸发了 而是在撞击后月球大气温度升高导致岩石中水分蒸发 而且水只是岩石成分中的一个例子 我写的时候也很发愁怎么才能说的有逻辑 我觉得要么干脆不提文章中的岩石成分 直接讲水分 要么说教授观点时指出水分是其中一个例子 否则用水不存在的理由是不能直接驳斥为什么地月的岩石组成不同的）

~/ Q
The passage shows that the density of the Moon is quite different from the earth. But the professor supports that the density of the Moon is same with （that of the）surface of earth. And the core should not be compared with the earth's due to it is the surface of the earth that composes of the Moon. （这句话不明确啊 compose of 一般用be composed of的形式表示由。。组成 这种主动的形式我没见过 可以直接用formed the Moon）Therefore, the professor refutes the views from article with stronger theory.# k)
另外还有一点你没提到 月球的密度和地表密度一样 这也支持了gaint-impact theory

总的来说三点是都提到了 但是具体的阐述有不清楚的地方 也有可能是听力没有记全 毕竟20分钟是很仓促 我觉得你的小作文也是不如大作文写得好 咱们一样 呵呵 多练习吧^^

fancywwUID: 2583671

在前面同学的基础上改，相同意见就不提了，不同意见还可以探讨一下，不是fancy懒哈~呵呵，fancy改的是蓝色

The passage demonstrates that the giant-impact theory is in doubt as the evidence is not strong enough to support that theory. However, the professor shows his perspectives with more details in the lecture.
第一段只说了教授用细节表明观点 却没有明确指出教授到底是赞同还是。。。反对文章观点 我觉得这是个比较大的问题 嗯...赞同

To begin with, the article shows that there should be a trace on the surface of the world（说Earth比较明确） if the impact really happened. So without the mark on it how can prove the huge collision took place. （这个句子好像不大通啊 且不建议用how can 之类的反问、感叹句，毕竟不是你在写，你需要客观陈述）The lecture supports the view that the impact happened around 4 billions years ago. （不是support，这是一个教授提出的事实吧）During such a long time and changing on the earth, probably the collision mark is（was？） disappeared. Therefore, it cannot say（prove比较合适say应该用被动而且不正式） that gain-impact did not show up（take place可能会更好一些）.! Z# O" R& B( U8 h+ l6 |$ |8 ]. M# K0 t: F/ a; r
% W( r6 ^5 G4 u1 L% i  s
; j( X# F3 \2 ~; T0 g0 J

The author also advocates that both material from the Moon and the earth should be the same due to the fact that they are (due to后面要跟的是名词性成分)from one planet. The professor asserts （that）because of （the）high temperature on the Moon, it is reasonable to believe that the substances do not contain any water. As we know, the temperature is very different between the earth and the moon.1 r- s/ Q9 x; j2 b9 p1 j
（这个观点说的不清楚 教授说的不是月球和地球温度不同所以水蒸发了 而是在撞击后月球大气温度升高导致岩石中水分蒸发 而且水只是岩石成分中的一个例子 我写的时候也很发愁怎么才能说的有逻辑 我觉得要么干脆不提文章中的岩石成分 直接讲水分 要么说教授观点时指出水分是其中一个例子 否则用水不存在的理由是不能直接驳斥为什么地月的岩石组成不同的 其实这个比较好办，应为文章也提到了水的例子，所以教授也只反驳了水，所以我们就只写水，呵呵）" P0 f. C' F, b, n

The passage shows that the density of the Moon is quite different from the earth. But the professor supports （support 用这儿不妥，argue is better）that the density of the Moon is same with （that of the）surface of earth. And the core should not be compared with the earth's due to it is the surface of the earth that composes of the Moon. （这句话不明确啊 compose of 一般用be composed of的形式表示由。。组成 这种主动的形式我没见过 可以直接用formed the Moon）Therefore, the professor refutes the views from article with stronger theory.# k) % R+ ]" b# @' Q4 ]7 R# Q
另外还有一点你没提到 月球的密度和地表密度一样 这也支持了gaint-impact theory 9 l7 O, O, K6 b

总的来说三点是都提到了 但是具体的阐述有不清楚的地方 也有可能是听力没有记全 毕竟20分钟是很仓促 我觉得你的小作文也是不如大作文写得好 咱们一样 呵呵 多练习吧^^5 E' p+ Y/ v! i,

machi的点评很到位了。的确要在句子组织上多下点功夫，长句容易意思弄混，而且也容易犯语病，需特别注意。