8.28 进军美利坚的花花的作文

arimidyUID: 2673973

In the reading material, the author doubts about the asteroid impact theory and lists three proofs. However, the professor in the lecture doesn't think the doubt convincing. Her reasons are as following.

First, the author points out that there's no trace left to prove the explosion once happened above Tunguska. The professor says that it is 19 years after the impact that scientists went into Tunguska to seek for the fragments or traces. Also, the professor says that scientists found abundant fragments after the meteoric explosion because they rushed into the spot just 2 weeks later.

Second, the author argues it should have caused a huge crater after the explosion but it hasn't. The professor clears it up by saying that as an enact rock, the asteroid didn't have to crash into the Earth. It could explode in the lower atmosphere before hitting the ground or explode into a fireball over Tunguska. If so, it would be no crater on the Earth.

Third, the professor concludes that if it is the methane gas that caused the explosion, the fireball wouldn't be concentrated on one spot. But the research has proved the trace of the explosion has a single destruction, which is more likely to be caused by an asteroid explosion.

machi730UID: 2672537

1# arimidy
In the reading material, the author doubts about the asteroid impact theory and lists three proofs. However, the professor in the lecture doesn't think the doubt convincing. Her reasons are as following.

Z9 {, a- l2 r4 A
First, the author points out that there's no trace left to prove the explosion once happened above Tunguska. The professor says that it is 19 years after the impact that scientists went into Tunguska to seek for the fragments or traces. Also, the professor says that scientists found abundant fragments after the meteoric explosion in Canada because they rushed into the spot just 2 weeks later.  g" K, g6 k2 s! @. O" `

, X0 @8 q. U1 }4 S0 c
Second, the author argues it should have caused a huge crater after the explosion but it hasn't. The professor clears it up by saying that as an enact rock, the asteroid didn't have to crash into the Earth. It could explode in the lower atmosphere before hitting the ground or explode into a fireball over Tunguska. If so, it would be no crater on the Earth.'

t- o+ Z! e6 ^* Z: p3 F
, J; ~8 ^0 p' K; y  w. ^( b/ R2 R
Third, the professor concludes that if it is the methane gas that caused the explosion, the fireball wouldn't be concentrated on one spot. But the research has proved the trace of the explosion has a single destruction(这句有点别扭), which is more likely to be caused by an asteroid explosion.

点说的挺全的 没什么问题

goback211UID: 2419259

In the reading material, the author doubts about the asteroid impact theory and lists three proofs. However, the professor in the lecture doesn't think the doubt convincing. Her reasons are as following.

First, the author points out that there's no trace left to prove the explosion once happened above Tunguska. The professor says that it is 19 years after the impact that scientists went into Tunguska to seek for the fragments or traces. Also, the professor says that scientists found abundant fragments after the meteoric explosion because they rushed into the spot just 2 weeks later.

Second, the author argues it should have caused a huge crater after the explosion but it hasn't. The professor clears it up by saying that as an enact rock, the asteroid didn't have to crash into the Earth. It could explode in the lower atmosphere before hitting the ground or explode into a fireball over Tunguska. If so, it would be no crater on the Earth.

Third, the professor concludes that if it is the methane gas that caused the explosion, the fireball wouldn't be concentrated on one spot. But the research has proved the trace of the explosion has a single destruction, which is more likely to be caused by an asteroid explosion.

没问题，很好，不过最后最好加上一段总结，简单的一句话就行