2009进军美利坚作文-8月28 by 泡面

泡面UID: 2513568

The text proposed that the Tungguska explosion is more likely to be caused by the "swamp gas" explosion rather than an asteroid from the outer space. The reading materail provided three reasons to defy the asteroid theory. However, the professsor casted doubt on these three reasons respectively to illustrate that this theory is unconvincing.
In the first floor, the absence of frangment or traces at the impact site cannot demonstrate there had no asteriod visted before. The example of meteoric explosion took place in Canada was happened in 2001 and the as soon as the explosion took place, the scientists all rushed there so it is easy to find the fragments and traces. While the Tunguska explosion took place in 1908, the discovery activity was held after 19 years later, so the absence of fragments and traces found by scientists is possible.
In the second floor, lacking evidence of huge crater does not equal to the conclusion that asteriod had never appeared. The professor claimed that it is equally possible that the asteraiod crash happened in the lower atmosphere before it hit the earther which definitely would not leave the huge crater on earth.
Last, the assumption that the explosion was cause by methane gas was not reliable. Because if it was the result of methane gas, the trace would not concerntrate only on one spot.
To sum up, the arguments in the reading material about the suspection to the former theory of Tungguska explosion  was totally denied by the professor from three reasons respectively which demonstrated that this thoery was unconvicing.

ly8768UID: 2452066

1# 泡面
The text proposed that the Tungguska explosion is more likely to be caused by the "swamp gas" explosion rather than an asteroid from the outer space. The reading materail provided three reasons to defy the asteroid theory. However, the professsor casted doubt on these three reasons respectively to illustrate that this theory is unconvincing.


In the first floor, the absence of frangment or traces at the impact site cannot demonstrate there had no asteriod visted before. The example of meteoric explosion took place in Canada was happened in 2001 and the as soon as the explosion took place, the scientists all rushed there so it is easy to find the fragments and traces. While the Tunguska explosion took place in 1908, the discovery activity was held after 19 years later, so the absence of fragments and traces found by scientists is possible.6 r. t' I- K# H0 s; p* K
In the second floor, lacking evidence of huge crater does not equal to the conclusion that asteriod had never appeared. The professor claimed that it is equally possible that the asteraiod crash happened in the lower atmosphere before it hit the earther which definitely would not leave the huge crater on earth.

Last, the assumption that the explosion was cause by methane gas was not reliable. Because if it was the result of methane gas, the trace would not concerntrate only on one spot.



To sum up, the arguments in the reading material about the suspection to the former theory of Tungguska explosion  was totally denied by the professor from three reasons respectively which demonstrated that this thoery was unconvicing.
关于小作文的问题：

我觉得你的观点都写到了，都写的不错。可以将这个作为模板，以后的文章都这样套～