Argument50

短发mmUID: 2840480

TOPIC: ARGUMENT50 - 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."
WORDS: 296

TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/7/23 20:34:21

This argument is well-presented, but poor-reasoned. The arguer thought that the water in Earth's oceans had originated from comets. Yet, the conclusion was based on several logical flaws. So it can not convince me indeed.
To begin with, it is unreasonable to judge that the prerequisite of this argument presented. Because this argument told us that as the planet approached its current size, its gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere. There is no evidence to show that Earth was 'the plane' which was described above. If there is no collision which can reduce this conclusion, that is to say: No collision, no water. So the oceans in the Earth, may not come from comets.
In addition, the arguer fails to illustrate that comets can bring water to the Earth, even if those collisions happen. Although comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases, absent such evidence show that the collisions happened between the earth and plants, and water was created by this process. Maybe as the argument offered, after collisions, ice became water and the entire ice ball had vaporized into the space not to the earth.
What's more, it is ridiculous to judge that the collision is the only way to form the oceans water. There are many factors can create water for oceans, such as chemical changes and so forth. It is presumptuous to say the water in Earth's oceans must have originated for plants before ruling out other possibilities.
In sum, unless the arguer can offer the further records about the collisions between earth and other plants, and the proof that it is not the other reasons cause the origination of the water in Earth’s oceans, I can not be persuaded.
傻了,我30分钟发现只能打那么多字,希望到时候不要抽到这篇.很难啊

missingusaUID: 2625832

限时可以晚点进行 而且对于比较难的题目可以功利点直接拿出来单独好好写一下
搜索了下lz的帖子 阿狗的练习间隔比较长
issue写了这么多语言运用应该比较熟练了 一天一篇阿狗应该还是可以的吧 保持好频率
写完记得改下

alickenUID: 2845947

这个题目的确够难的，虽说写argument不需要背景知识，但是对于这篇没有背景知识好像不行。

作者反对了3个点：
     (1)、地球形成时没有发生碰撞
     (2)、彗星没有和地球碰撞
     (3)、地球上的水有其他来源，比如chemical changes

关于(1) (2)两点反驳作者没有给出证据，这个方法在其他的argument可以，但这篇不行。因为地球的成因本身就处于科幻阶段，拿不出证据。
第(3)点是可以反驳的。

而且这个题目在推理上有没有什么漏洞，所以，只有从前提上入手，反驳如下：
     (1)、在地球形成时，地球内部有水。(虽然地球形成时的温度很高，地球上的水分足以蒸发，但是注意，那时由于碰撞，地球的压力可能远大于现在。而我们知道水在高压下的沸点要高于一个大气压下的100 度，所以地球内部完全有可能有水存在)

     (2)、彗星撞地球时它所带的水分没有留在地球大气层 (促使彗星溶化的热量来自其与大气层的摩擦，而在第一颗彗星撞上地球之前，地球是没有大气层的，所以彗星不可能溶化形成水)

     (3)、可能是其他天体撞地球时带来了水。

以上都是在网上收集的，仅供参考

短发mmUID: 2840480

3# alicken
如果不是网上搜得,是你自己总结的,同学你真的太牛了,我看了这篇文愣了半天,看了分析继续又愣了半天,我就没有明白,所以套路了.分析得很好,借鉴

alickenUID: 2845947

(1) 是看了人家一篇文章，然后大受启发，可能觉得这篇还只有用背景知识，就想出了(2)。至于第 (3)嘛，应该都想得到。

hugeseaUID: 190158

TOPIC: ARGUMENT50 - 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 increasin ...
短发mm 发表于 2010-7-23 20:54

这一篇是有名的难题啊，佩服楼主敢于挑战高难度

rockhumanUID: 2820888

感觉没有必要运用到那么深的背景，首先写那些背景词汇上会有困难，其次，不知道为什么板凳同学认为拿不出证据就不能攻击呢？ 既然没有事实根据，猜想就是可疑的，虽然楼主第一二点本质上是一个问题。