草莓拌饭组 ARGUMENT接力帖

ddcmj519UID: 176326

【规则很简单】

1楼帖个题目题目拆析下。分析题目逻辑链并简略陈述相关问题，再补充上提纲也可，然后给楼下出一道题。
（逻辑链是至少的。。。没有逻辑链视作没有参与。。。）

2楼讨论楼上的分析有什么问题，然后分析上面给的题目，再给楼下出一题。

……

往后基本就按二楼的了。同时可以补充前面所讨论过的楼层中 自己认为有问题的分析。

楼上在分析过程中有疑问亦可提出，要求楼下解决。

如此反复。

考虑到有同学先后回复同一个楼上的内容，后面的同学就近分析即可~
（主要接力内容比较多，这个问题应该比较常见。。）

【关于奖励】
凡参加此活动者由版主发放5GTB。

同时定期我会统计参加次数，每月累计的前三名同学将获得cmj  或者 米饭 修改权一次~~

【所以~】
拌饭组的同志们~~
冲啊~~~
当然欢迎走过路过的版友参与~~

请大家保证回帖原创性~
从别处copy来的内容于人于己都是没有用的。
All actions gonna have consequences

ddcmj519UID: 176326

形式参考https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=&page=1
如有疑问请与我联系~

NaperyUID: 2710990

某爪子先来小试一把吧。
错过昨晚的BS很是遗憾。
也想不到啥新题。
觉得能把布置过的题目好好的弄清楚，对于自己来说，就是个很有挑战的小任务了。
回头再看这个题目，觉得还是有所收获的。
起码逻辑图觉得要好好改动下。
这样行文的思路更加明确了。
果真明确的逻辑链是至关重要的。囧。
具体情况如下：

112The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.

"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."

Logic Chain:

Notorious for flight delays[Fact 1] => building new runways to increase capacity[Assumption 1] => filling in 900 acres[Fact 2] => disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife[Fact 2] => fund the restoration of wetlands which have been damaged[Assumption 2] => In order to reduce flight delays and help the environment, the plan should be adopted[Assumption 3]

之前构思的逻辑图：


后来重新审视后，觉得应该修改成下面这个逻辑图：

就这道题而言就是：我们应该按照题目所说方案去实施 BY-- 米饭头头儿

Assumption 1
1. This proposed plan rests on an unlikely assumption that an inadequate capacity has resulted in the flight delay.
Other reasons for flight delays:
harsh weather condition;
poor or ineffective management;
airplanes of poor qualities;

No sufficient evidence supports that building new runways could help to settle this problem.
It might ultimately turn out to be a waste of money.

Assumption 2
2+3. Could the benefits from wetlands restoration be capable of counteracting the damages brought by the bay-filling?
more serious deterioration before the restoration is completed;
impossible to restore to its original condition;
harmful effects on environment have been ignored without certain solutions;
no reliable and precise data to substantiate its positive impacts speaks louder than its negative impacts.

Assumption 3
4.  Whether the airport has the ability to keep its promise?
This plan could be absolutely put into practice?
No evidence.

楼下的题目：
就还是布置的题目，argument 4吧。表砸偶丫。嘿嘿。

4 The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.

"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."
1.

gongyuxiang1990UID: 2697832

4 The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.

"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."

  

提出我的攻击点：

①数量少就一定效益低吗？效率不等于数量！                                    不能支持superior
②revenue不等于profit, 如果A's costs>F's 呢？                          不能支持superior
③sales高不等于房屋卖的好，相反，可能导致顾客流失，                   不能支持superior
   sales高可能是由于房子是新房，不代表listed home 就能买的高
  PS.摘自小手

作者说的是去年的时候A的revenue高于F，但是忽视在其它年份的时候，F可能就做的比A好一些。

                                                                             不能支持good price
④很明显有个严重的时间差问题，二者根本没有可比性，10年前
   去年如何去对比？十年前是什么情况，现在还适用吗？
   去年Fitch的销售情况呢？                                                            不能支持sell quickly

大家拍一下砖哈，小弟拙见！

阿狗48（O(∩_∩)O~偶也整个作业里的）
48The following appeared in a newspaper article published in the country of Corpora.

"Twenty years ago, one half of all citizens in Corpora met the standards for adequate physical fitness as then defined by the national advisory board on physical fitness. Today, the board says that only one quarter of all citizens are adequately fit and suggests that spending too much time using computers may be the reason. But since overall fitness levels are highest in regions of Corpora where levels of computer ownership are also highest, it is clear that using computers has not made citizens less physically fit. Instead, as shown by this year's unusually low expenditures on fitness-related products and services, the recent decline in the economy is most likely the cause, and fitness levels will improve when the economy does."

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID: 2705887

48The following appeared in a newspaper article published in the country of Corpora.

"Twenty years ago, one half of all citizens in Corpora met the standards for adequate physical fitness as then defined by the national advisory board on physical fitness. Today, the board says that only one quarter of all citizens are adequately fit and suggests that spending too much time using computers may be the reason. But since overall fitness levels are highest in regions of Corpora where levels of computer ownership are also highest, it is clear that using computers has not made citizens less physically fit. Instead, as shown by this year's unusually low expenditures on fitness-related products and services, the recent decline in the economy is most likely the cause, and fitness levels will improve when the economy does."

20years ago, 1/2 met fitness standards
                                                             > ①fitness↓ ∵spending to much time using computer
Today,1/4 met
                                                                 ②C computer ownership highest,but fitness highest  
                                                                                            ↓
                                                                    computer using hasn't made less physically fit
                                                                 ③low expenditure on fitness-related products and service
                                                                                            ↓
                                                                    economy decline is the reason                         --->conclusion: economy↑ =>fitness↑


①20年前的健康标准或许和现在的不一样，单纯的数字比例，不能说明健康水平下降

②assumption: computer ownership high=spending to much time
   电脑拥有量高，没有调查spending time是否就一定高？∴没法说明健康水平与电脑拥有量之间的必然联系

③没有全面考虑花费在健康方面的产品和服务低的真正原因，只说经济衰退影响的。有可能是产品和服务不能满足人们的需求；

而且这个低花费也没有具体说明，是与居民的其他支出相比低，还是其他的原因？

即使是因为经济衰退影响的，那么经济好转，人们就一定会把开销在健康方面增大，而不是花销在其他娱乐方面？

就算花销在健康产品和服务方面，也不能说明这些产品和服务就一定能帮助人们提高健康水平。

结论：经济好转，健康水平就会提高。经济好转和健康水平没有必然联系，或许经济好转，人们更愿意花更多的钱和时间在computer上面，而不是花时间去健身。

==================================================================================嘿嘿，楼下加油，期待你的分析

40The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of Excello Food Markets.

"In 90 towns where Excello has food markets, natural-food stores specializing in organic food products—products containing no chemical preservatives and made with foods grown without pesticides—have opened nearby as competitors. Surveys of our own customers reveal a growing concern about foods grown using pesticides or preserved with chemicals. Recently our market in Sun City participated in a local food tasting fair, and 75 percent of the fair goers who visited the Excello booth requested free samples of organic fruit. Such evidence indicates that to increase our profits, we should begin to stock a full line of organic food products in all our markets."

dairymanUID: 2683905

40The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of Excello Food Markets.

"In 90 towns where Excello has food markets, natural-food stores specializing in organic food products—products containing no chemical preservatives and made with foods grown without pesticides—have opened nearby as competitors. Surveys of our own customers reveal a growing concern about foods grown using pesticides or preserved with chemicals. Recently our market in Sun City participated in a local food tasting fair, and 75 percent of the fair goers who visited the Excello booth requested free samples of organic fruit. Such evidence indicates that to increase our profits, we should begin to stock a full line of organic food products in all our markets."

先分析下逻辑链，不画图，只是文字描述吧（不会画图，顺便赞楼上几个图）……
作者是这么想的：有E食品市场所在的90个城镇出现卖有机食品的竞争者，因此分析E卖有机食品的必要性，最后得出结论说为了增加利润，理应在所有的市场都储备足量的有机食品
中间的的证据是这样的：1.E市场自己的顾客在调查中显得对用有农药或者防腐剂的食品担心-》有理由卖？
                    2.S市的当地食品品尝活动中，75%的参加者在E摊点要的是有机水果-》说明受欢迎？
  所以作者认为，卖有机食品会使得E有很多利润
好了，这个东西的逻辑错误在哪里？调查类错误，profit错误，还有最重要的是作者的证据实在没法来说明任何东西……

这样反驳来看：
1.顾客担心农药或者防腐剂的食品。这个很明显啊，是人都担心自己的健康。这个确实能说明大家就会一定对有机食品感兴趣么？不能，况且这个调查只是对E自己的消费者，调查类错误不再多说
2.S市的视频品尝会，75%的人要了有机水果。这个更不着调了，75%要了有机食品就能说明有机食品被重视了么？
        这里有这么几个点：a.free，免费的，所以可能就要了；
                         b.大家对新鲜的东西有兴趣，所以想试试；
                         c.只有水果被提及，但是很明显有机食品范畴要大得多吧？就算大家对有机水果有兴趣，也不说明对有机食品都买账
                         d.75%这个数据无效，可能要非有机食品的人是100%！！所以这一条是相当的没什么用
3.profit问题，要考虑收入成本等，不多说，此外是竞争问题，作者忘了本来就卖有机食品的竞争者了
4.况且从一个S市推所有的……怕是夸张了

作者的思维链其实比较乱，我是这么认为的，作者给出这些数据，潜台词是在说有机食品有市场（这个重要），所以我们卖的话大家就买我们的，所以我们就能赚很多~
重点是这个潜台词，大家写的时候理应提及，因为作者的证据都是想给大家一个印象，由于有机食品健康，所以大家都会买。如果能说明有机食品有没有市场还是悬而未决的，那么大家的argument基本上就八字有一撇了。

【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."
这篇很有难度，笔者当年着实想了半天，仍然没有理顺，看看楼下是谁吧，hiahia~

智勇双全。瀚UID: 2632607

【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."

⊙﹏⊙b汗，我也画不来图，膜拜汉德和90，图画得真好，再赞眼皮一个，老实人~哈哈
==================================================================

作者得出结论的思路是：

论据1.地球在形成初期的时候因为太空岩石碰撞以及逐渐增强的地心引力，使地球上的温度非常高

论据2.（紧接论据1）所以在那个时候的任何水分都会go off into space.
（这句话的意思就是要表明，在这个时期，地球的水已经全部go off了，一点都没剩）


论据3.当地球的引力足以吸引气体和水蒸气保持在周围的时候，由于comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases，所以彗星撞击地球后蒸发，蒸发后的水作为雨水降到地面。

4因为刚才已经说了地球上的水在形成过程中全部go off in to space了，后来只有彗星带来了水。所以得出结论：地球上海洋中的水一定是来自彗星。

（此题涉及的知识背景很偏很怪，而实际上如果把最后一句话the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets中的must改成may，这篇argument完全就是教科书中的原话。）
==============================================================================

分析此题：
1.从“论据1地球的形成”入手。
地球是怎么形成的，这个问题至今都没有确切的答案。文中“Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks”只是一种目前为止被人们暂时接受的假说。所以，作者的推论是建立在一个不确定的假设上的。也许地球是由其他方式形成的，没有经过高温阶段，所以地球上最原始的水分没有被蒸发掉，也没有go off，可以说现在地球上海洋中的水就是来自于地球形成初期。

2.从“论据2水分的蒸发”入手。
发现“any”这个倒霉蛋，一般有这种比较绝对的说法，都是可以攻击的。
让步：就算是地球就是由于space rocks碰撞形成的，而且加上其重力增加的作用，make the entire planet molten, even the surface. 但也没有证据表明在此高温下，地球上的水分就全部蒸发掉了而且全部go off了。或许在地球的内部，还保存着一些水。没有排除这种可能性，我们就不能说现在海洋中的水originate from comets.

3.从“论据3彗星撞击”入手
首先，彗星是由冰、气体等组成的ice，这有一定的科学依据，所以不能反驳。由彗星撞击带来了水是事实。
让步：就算是地球形成过程中的高温让地球上的水分全部蒸发而且go off。但是，现在地球上海洋面积占地球总面积的71%，海水总量为13.7亿立方千米，而以比较出名的哈雷彗星为例，哈雷彗星的体积也才1024立方千米，那么需要几百万颗哈雷彗星大小的彗星撞击才能带来如此大量的水。但没有证据表明地球在演变过程中受到了很多次彗星的撞击
再次让步：即使彗星撞击地球带来了很多水，但作者没有考虑其他可能带来水的因素。比如化学反应、地球引力吸引外太空的水等等。没有carefully considering those possible factors，我们就不能简单的得出结论。


（说到底，这篇阿狗最大的毛病就是没有证据，地球诞生46亿年了，人类才300万年左右，我们哪里知道那么古老的事情；再说了，宇宙那么大，我们连太阳系都没有突破，上哪去找形成的证据）

====================================================================

我也来一道变态一点的吧，196就是我第一次看题库觉得很有道理找不出什么毛病的文章之一，如今虽然我找到了突破点，不过仍然觉得很难写。希望接招的同志能写得详细一些！

ARGUMENT196 –
Sadly, widespread negative images of businesspeople have been created in large part by television. Consider the fact that, although they make up a mere 10 percent of the characters in dramatic roles on television, businesspeople are responsible for about one-fifth of all the crime on television shows. In fact, in a recent survey of television producers, only 35 percent of the television roles for businesspeople were viewed as positive ones.

NaperyUID: 2710990

4 The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.

"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real ...
gongyuxiang1990 发表于 2009-11-16 15:16

小小插一个队。。。。
90，题目中说的是，agents多,而不是real estate。
我觉得这里可以利用作者给的论据，或者说背景知识，作为我们的攻击点。
作者指出A的sales要多一些，或许就是因为A的agents多一些，人多力量大，积累就来就sales高啦，
而且，或许每个人的销售额数量会比F的个人销售量低或者效率差些。

Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000.

这句话里也有一个点呢，我觉得。
作者说的是去年的时候A的revenue高于F，但是忽视在其它年份的时候，F可能就做的比A好一些。

NaperyUID: 2710990

196. Sadly, widespread negative images of businesspeople have been created in large part by television. Consider the fact that, although they make up a mere 10 percent of the characters in dramatic roles on television, businesspeople are responsible for about one-fifth of all the crime on television shows. In fact, in a recent survey of television producers, only 35 percent of the television roles for businesspeople were viewed as positive ones.
很不幸的，商业人士广为人知的负面形象很大程度上是由电视造成的。请考虑如下事实：尽管商业人士在电视剧角色中只占10％，他们却占了电视节目中所有犯罪的大约五分之一。实际上，在最近一次对于电视节目制作者的调查中，电视角色中的商业人士只有35％被看作是正面人物。

Assumptions：
1.
Negative images have been created only by TV.
2.
These negative images had fair negative influences on audience and people thought of them as real roles in real life.
[觉得这是个隐含的假设。假设商人的负面形象有负面影响。]
3.
The fact that they make up 10% in roles on TV and account for 20% in crimes on TV shows demonstrate that Businesspeople stand for negative images and these were more influential than their positive ones.
4.
A survey of TV producers is reliable and thus the statistic that 35% were viewed as positive ones means 65% were absolutely viewed as negative ones.
5.
It was thought that the negative images of business people created by TV had contributed to the impression of producers that 35% were viewed as positive ones.
[作者假设制作人的这个调查结果，是因为电视塑造出来的负面形象的影响。]


分析：[颜色相同的，为相应的分析，有点点类似于提纲。]
1.
Other media such as magazines, newspapers, Internet or novels contributed to the widespread negative images of businesspeople.
2.
Every walk of life can be characterized on TV shows, compared to other professions; perhaps 10% defines a number of less people. Despite the fact that 1/5 of all the crime are business people, we are not informed of the ratio of all crime to the whole roles on TV.
3.
Even the ratio is high; it doesn’t mean that the businesspeople stand for negative images as their positive ones may appear much more often on TV shows.
4.
The survey is statistically unreliable. The number of respondents might be insufficient to represent all producers.
5.
The result that 35% were viewed as positive doesn’t necessarily mean that 65% are all negative ones, as there may be some characteristics without neither negative nor positive images.
6.
It is possible that TV producers have to view businesspeople as negative ones for work’s sake, as the scenarios sometimes call for negative ones which are just to the contrary in real life. It is also of fair possibilities that in order to attract people who are interested in businesspeople for their negative images, TV producers mean to view them as negative ones. The author confuses the cause and result.
7.
Even businesspeople were negative images created by TV, it is not necessary that they will have negative effects. Perhaps their crime has failed to leave audience any deep impression or the audience think that business people’s negative images have nothing much to do with their real life, such as in their choice or view of careers in their real life.

LX的同志加油啦~
爪子建议，开始的时候还是不要出太难的题目吧。
咱们一步一步来，先把基础给打好好了。
嘿嘿，个人建议呀！

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

dairymanUID: 2683905

1.从“论据1地球的形成”入手。（地球形成问题其实可以从略，注意人家重点是water）
地球是怎么形成的，这个问题至今都没有确切的答案。文中“Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks”只是一种目前为止被人们暂时接受的假说。所以，作者的推论是建立在一个不确定的假设上的。也许地球是由其他方式形成的，没有经过高温阶段，所以地球上最原始的水分没有被蒸发掉，也没有go off，可以说现在地球上海洋中的水就是来自于地球形成初期。

2.从“论据2水分的蒸发”入手。
发现“any”这个倒霉蛋，一般有这种比较绝对的说法，都是可以攻击的。
让步：就算是地球就是由于space rocks碰撞形成的，而且加上其重力增加的作用，make the entire planet molten, even the surface. 但也没有证据表明在此高温下，地球上的水分就全部蒸发掉了而且全部go off了。或许在地球的内部，还保存着一些水。（大赞）没有排除这种可能性，我们就不能说现在海洋中的水originate from comets.

顺便再提一点：As the planet approached its current size, however, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere.看到没有，这一句是什么时候出现的？说完地球上的水都蒸发走了，突然来了这一句----大家明白了吧？没准蒸发出去的一部分都在这些atmosphere里面了，那很明显有可能这些水通过某种降水方式重新回到地球了呀，不就能说明不一定地球的水完全来自彗星喽？以彼之矛攻彼之盾，这才是驳论文的绝妙写法~

3.从“论据3彗星撞击”入手
首先，彗星是由冰、气体等组成的ice，这有一定的科学依据，所以不能反驳。由彗星撞击带来了水是事实。（Because comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, a comet striking Earth then would have vaporized.事实上，这里绝对是攻击点，largely看到没？大家对彗星的印象是rock对不对？那么你说有水就有水么？有水就是大部分都是么？）
让步：就算是地球形成过程中的高温让地球上的水分全部蒸发而且go off。但是，现在地球上海洋面积占地球总面积的71%，海水总量为13.7亿立方千米，而以比较出名的哈雷彗星为例，哈雷彗星的体积也才1024立方千米，那么需要几百万颗哈雷彗星大小的彗星撞击才能带来如此大量的水。但没有证据表明地球在演变过程中受到了很多次彗星的撞击（记住ets出题是不要求大家的背景知识的，就是说，你不知道哈雷彗星有多少立方，海水有多少立方都没关系，赞查阅资料的辛苦，虽然有助于思考，但是仅限于开阔视野，不要那这个当宝贝哦）
再次让步：即使彗星撞击地球带来了很多水，但作者没有考虑其他可能带来水的因素。比如化学反应、地球引力吸引外太空的水等等（赞，不过最好凸显是因为彗星的缘故造成的化学反应，因为1的时候已经说了地球内部的水可能存在在内部，要区分开各种水的诞生和存在区别）。没有carefully considering those possible factors，我们就不能简单的得出结论。

（说到底，这篇阿狗最大的毛病就是没有证据，地球诞生46亿年了，人类才300万年左右，我们哪里知道那么古老的事情；再说了，宇宙那么大，我们连太阳系都没有突破，上哪去找形成的证据）（这个嘛，仅限于开阔思路，在驳论过程中是理应不出现的~）

拙见而已，有意见大家一起提出来，毕竟这个题目是绝对的难题哦！---乃公敬上

stupidsteveUID: 2704849

10# dairyman
【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."

奶叔，这道题我是酱想的（抛开阿狗不谈，纯粹琢磨作者的思路 因为比较感兴趣地球物理）：

A: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.
timespot1

B:As the planet approached its current size, however, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere.
timespot2

C:comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, a comet striking Earth then would have vaporized.

D:water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere, D':eventually falling as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of Earth.

timespot3

E:the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets

[(A-->C)+B]-->D-->D'-->E

这道题的作者专业素养显然很高，他偷偷地把论证过程中用到的重要条件 给 隐藏了，下面，S带领大家一层层揭开他论证关系的面纱，看看这个老家伙到底是怎样进行学术忽悠的～


1. -->D这一步：要求至少以下两个条件中的至少一个成立i.surface依然滚烫导致comet在surface才被蒸发

ii.此时的地球已经有了大气层，导致comet被大气层摩擦蒸发（按照作者理论要求之前已经有comet拜访过地球）明显我们不会接受ii.因为我们需要知道最初comet撞地球的情况才能判断 水是否来自comet

2.：那么，按照作者分析的i.条件，有这样一个要求：A-->C的时间timespot1
与 B的时间timespot2
是重合的 即：地球到了能够产生挽留vapor并大气层的时候，还是像刚刚诞生时那样滚烫滚烫的 这个assumption在此也无可厚非没有什么问题，可惜在接下来的逻辑中出现了重大谬误…


3. -->D' 此处的falling as rain要求retained in the atmosphere成立，即timespot1&2与timespot3的重合。大家请注意：此时surface已经cooled and solidified了（鬼知道为什么突然从 timespot1说明的moltening hot 变成了timespot3的cooled？！作者看到这里或许想反驳说：因为之前的comet蒸发过程带走了surface的热量所以温度降低了...按照作者的理论，这里requires一个平衡点（姑且称作S平衡）：即surface temperature and gravitational fit each other，地表温度既可以保持降水又能继续气化comet……且这个平衡点不会因为更多的comet拜访而受到破坏）,可惜呀作者，这些统统都是assumptions呀～我们知道的唯一fact仅仅是comet里面含有水，作者没有给出任何证据说明他的assumptions可行而且 同时发生, 何况，明明assumptions之间有矛盾…

4. -->E：这样就实在太牵强了...这样绝对地否认了其他水来源的可能性：作者充其量只能说明 水能够通过comet这种途径来到地球（就算地球诞生时没有水，那么地球发展过程中就不会因为合适的化学反应产生水吗？），所以在没有深刻分析其他hypothesis的情况下，作者的hasty conclusion显然不合适。

扯淡完毕～因为是出自兴趣胡乱写的所以大家看着玩玩儿就好～～～

dairymanUID: 2683905

这道题的作者专业素养显然很高，他偷偷地把论证过程中用到的重要条件 给 隐藏了，下面，S带领大家一层层揭开他论证关系的面纱，看看这个老家伙到底是怎样进行学术忽悠的～（看到这里我大赞，偷换概念，隐藏概念是高级的错误，这个题目就是难在这个地方）

1. -->D这一步：要求至少以下两个条件中的至少一个成立i.surface依然滚烫导致comet在surface才被蒸发
ii.此时的地球已经有了大气层，导致comet被大气层摩擦蒸发（按照作者理论要求之前已经有comet拜访过地球）明显我们不会接受ii.因为我们需要知道最初comet撞地球的情况才能判断 水是否来自comet（逆推假定，大赞）
2.：那么，按照作者分析的i.条件，有这样一个要求：A-->C的时间timespot1与 B的时间timespot2是重合的 即：地球到了能够产生挽留vapor并大气层的时候，还是像刚刚诞生时那样滚烫滚烫的 这个assumption在此也无可厚非没有什么问题，可惜在接下来的逻辑中出现了重大谬误…
3. -->D' 此处的falling as rain要求retained in the atmosphere成立，即timespot1&2与timespot3的重合。大家请注意：此时surface已经cooled and solidified了（鬼知道为什么突然从 timespot1说明的moltening hot 变成了timespot3的cooled？！作者看到这里或许想反驳说：因为之前的comet蒸发过程带走了surface的热量所以温度降低了...按照作者的理论，这里requires一个平衡点（姑且称作S平衡）：即surface temperature and gravitational fit each other，地表温度既可以保持降水又能继续气化comet……且这个平衡点不会因为更多的comet拜访而受到破坏）,可惜呀作者，这些统统都是assumptions呀～我们知道的唯一fact仅仅是comet里面含有水，作者没有给出任何证据说明他的assumptions可行而且 同时发生, 何况，明明assumptions之间有矛盾…（老夫觉得，作者说地球够热是为了表明：1地球原来的水都没了，2彗星里面的固态水被变成了液态水。所以整个论证最核心的假设就是：大气层里的水分全部是彗星里面的，即便此时地球还热，表面没水，早晚有一天会降温，然后大气层的水通过降雨进入地球表层，成为了地球上水的唯一来源。那么这个假设其实重点要批判大气层里水分不完全是彗星里面的就可以了，因为地球的质量和引力不至于在地球表面原来水分被气化过程中没有能力留住一丝一毫）
4. -->E：这样就实在太牵强了...这样绝对地否认了其他水来源的可能性：作者充其量只能说明 水能够通过comet这种途径来到地球（就算地球诞生时没有水，那么地球发展过程中就不会因为合适的化学反应产生水吗？），所以在没有深刻分析其他hypothesis的情况下，作者的hasty conclusion显然不合适。（看到这里，我感觉你的模板很厉害：所以在没有深刻分析其他hypothesis的情况下，作者的hasty conclusion显然不合适。）

扯淡完毕～因为是出自兴趣胡乱写的所以大家看着玩玩儿就好～～～（鼓励~！ss很上道，允许你和你的小学姐好好上自习）

stupidsteveUID: 2704849

12# dairyman 早晨起床之后又想到了作者的一个谬误：
他还认为大气层来源于comet且 大气层-->surface 这个环节是不可缺少的 这要求早期surface温度很高以至于能够蒸发comet生成大气层，后期surface温度较低不足以蒸发water从而能够允许降水形成液态水。。。撇开地球最初自身的水份蒸发成为大气层的一部分（奶叔的超级反驳论～赞）不谈，咱们在让一步，就算地球从始至终就是没有来自自身的水，那么，作者陈述的这个大气层-->surface过程其实也是可以怀疑的：如果在还没有大气层的时候，surface温度已经降到不再足以蒸发comet了，却可以融化comet中的ice，那么，comet-->earth过程就没有 作者认为必须经历的大气层 这一环节，即，我们可以用这里假设来反驳他：comet撞到地球之后直接在surface就成为了液态水，根本没有经历大气层这一过程。因为作者的surface温度论本身就是假设，我们也可以用合理假设来攻击他的论证路线。


While（正如小手所言，看到S的but，while，however就是转折...囧！...），这一步仅仅是用来攻击作者的论证关系的，即：亲爱的作者，我们先不管你的结果是否正确，起码你得出这个结果的逻辑本身有问题hiahia~大家注意，这个充其量只是只是让步 ，记住咱们的目标是反驳作者的结论（water originated from comet but not anything else），所以，奶叔的反驳（地球自身水也可能是大气层的一部分）才是最有攻击力的～

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID: 2705887

ii.此时的地球已经有了大气层，导致comet被大气层摩擦蒸发（按照作者理论要求之前已经有comet拜访过地球）明显我们不会接受ii.因为我们需要知道最初comet撞地球的情况才能判断 水是否来自comet
stupidsteve 发表于 2009-11-19 21:24

这里我看不出“按照作者理论要求之前已经有comet拜访过地球”。。。

我个人的理解是“As the planet approached its current size, however, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere.” 先是地球达到了它现在的大小时，它的重力强到了。。。在此之后，彗星来访！

个人意见，欢迎SS，奶男来拍。

stupidsteveUID: 2704849

14# 单眼皮vs肿眼皮 就是说：作者认为comet被蒸发  1.在地表  2.在大气层
因为作者认为大气层就是来源于comet蒸发，所以2.要求必须之前有comet拜访过地球且被蒸发～～