Argument50 同主题，欢迎拍砖和讨论，定回拍

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

Argument50  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：34分21秒     401 words
从2005年6月13日18时7分到2005年6月13日18时34分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The arguer assert that it is the comet the original source of the water in Earth 's ocean comes from. In order to support this argument, he cites the origin of the planet is a place where no water can retain and reasons to the assertion that the water is brought by the comets after the forming of the planet. However, I contend that there are several flaws which are open to doubt.

First of all, There is no evidence that in the formation of the earth, the water present would go into the space. In this subject, the arguer does not give the experimental statistics to show that the earth was born as a molten one. Maybe it is born as a solid one or some other states, which is still unknown. The research of the original of the Earth is not accurate may lead to the unconvincing reasoning of the following steps and at last, make a wrong conclusion. In a word. without the accurate basis of this assumption, it is not reasonable to say that the water is from the outer space.

Secondly, is it the comets which bring the necessary water to the atmosphere by striking is still open to doubt. There may have other ways to retain water in the planet ,for instance, the water maybe contained in the rocks, which did not release the water under specific circumstance. The arguer has ignored the other means to retain water such as what I have assumed above and put no valid research result or statistics to show that the comets are the only way to bring to water to the Earth, which may lead to a arbitrary conclusion.

Thirdly, granting that what the arguer has asserted  above is valid, the  water from the comets sufficient enough to cool and solidify the surface of Earth? The water from the outer space may be limit and is not enough to cool and solidify the surface of the Earth which may cause another problem in resulting to the assertion. If the planet is cooled and solidified by other means and the water is limit, which will lead to a question that ,is there enough comets to strike the Earth and bring the large quantity of water which covers the 70 percent of the planet today? The arguer has ignored the assumption and does not give us the convincing evidence to trust that the comets has brought enough water to cool the planet and form the ocean nowadays.

In all, the arguer need more evidence such as the careful and accurate studying of the Earth, the means which may retain water in the childhood of the Earth and the quantity and the possibility of the comets to bring enough water to the Earth to prove his assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from the comets.

esmeirasUID: 202885

1. Secondly, is it the comets which bring the necessary water to the atmosphere by striking is still open to doubt.

it is  前加 whether, which 换成that才是强调句型

2. Thirdly, granting that   ..

granted that?   granting that 能用不? 没印象了..~~~~

3. from the comets sufficient ....
sufficient前加 is,    maybe limited..

先说这么多,语法还是稍微要检查一下的,像我这种语法很差的人都。.....

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

谢谢esmeiras帮我拍苍蝇，本来在贴上来之前还改了一遍的，呜呜呜~~~
看来拼写和语法都是我的大问题呀！

shengzhongbellUID: 199083

Argument50  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：34分21秒     401 words
从2005年6月13日18时7分到2005年6月13日18时34分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The arguer assert that it is the comet the original source of the water in Earth 's ocean comes from. In order to support this argument, he[建议作者不用he，就用the arguer] cites the origin of the planet is a place where no water can retain and reasons to the assertion that the water is brought by the comets after the forming of the planet. However, I contend that there are several flaws which are open to doubt.

First of all, There[there]  is no evidence[+shows]  that in the formation of the earth, the water present would go into the space. In this subject, the arguer does not give the experimental statistics to show that the earth was born as a molten one. Maybe it is born as a solid one or some other states, which is still unknown. The research of the original of the Earth is not accurate may lead to the unconvincing reasoning of the following steps and at last, make a wrong conclusion. In a word. without the accurate basis of this assumption, it is not reasonable to say that the water is from the outer space.

Secondly, is it [改为whether句型] the comets which bring the necessary water to the atmosphere by striking is still open to doubt. There may have other ways to retain water in the planet ,for instance, the water maybe contained in the rocks, which did not release the water under specific circumstance. The arguer has ignored the other means to retain water such as what I have assumed above and put no valid research result or statistics to show that the comets are the only way to bring to water to the Earth, which may lead to a arbitrary conclusion.

Thirdly, granting that what the arguer has asserted above is valid, the  water from the comets sufficient enough to cool and solidify the surface of Earth[缺谓语]? The water from the outer space may be limit and is not enough to cool and solidify the surface of the Earth which may cause another problem in resulting to the assertion. If the planet is cooled and solidified by other means and the water is limit, which will lead to a question that, is there enough comets to strike the Earth and bring the large quantity of water which covers the 70 percent of the planet today? The arguer has ignored the assumption and does not give us the convincing evidence to trust that the comets has[主谓不一致] brought enough water to cool the planet and form the ocean nowadays.[连续反问用得不错]

In all, the arguer need more evidence such as the careful and accurate studying of the Earth, the means which may retain water in the childhood of the Earth and the quantity and the possibility of the comets to bring enough water to the Earth to prove his assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from the comets.

[写得不错，错误都找到了，时间也差不多，加油]

[ Last edited by shengzhongbell on 2005-7-14 at 10:21 ]

shengzhongbellUID: 199083

The arguer concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To bolster the assertion, the arguer cites the following facts that after the collision， the gravitation can hold gases and water vapor and then the water can falling on the surface of the Earth. Additionally, the comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, the argument is logically flawed in several respects.

First of all, there is no evidence shows that earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks. Even today, there still are two saying about the origin of the earth. It is possible that earth has been existent at the very beginning of the universe. Moreover, no evidence shows that the gravitation is strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it. Even if they can form the atmosphere, the form of ocean could also be difficult. So the arguer's assumption about the collision of space rocks fails to convince us that the conclusion can lead the ocean.

Secondly, the arguer mentions that the water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere and falling as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of earth. However, that is not necessary the case, the falling water might not cooled and solidified on the surface of Earth. Perhaps it has vaporized again according to the left heat of the striking. It is also possible that the volume of the ice in comets is not sufficient to form the ocean on the Earth. Without considering and ruling out such possible reasons, the arguer's assumption that the ice of the comets can cause the form of oceans is baseless.

Finally, even the assumption about the collision above is correct. The fact that the comets are made up of frozen water and gases says little about the water in Earth's oceans. It is possible that the main part of the ocean has existent before the collision. And the collision of the comets only increases the area of the ocean. It is also possible that the collision boost the ice under the Earth to come into being ocean. To the extent that this is the case, the arguer's assumption that the comets generate the Earth’s oceans is groundless.

In sum, the arguer's assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer must provide more evidence that the ice of the comets is adequate to form the ocean and there isn't any ocean on the Earth before the collision. To better evaluate the assumption, I would need to known more about that whether the Earth is formed as a result of collision.


我写的，可参考

esmeirasUID: 202885

你们改的字体可以变颜色哦,教我,我也要变色的 :) 是在word 里吗?
楼上的,也把你的拍了 ,没意见吧?    呵呵  :)

强烈要求男生把提纲列出来! 不知道为什么,GG 写的文章看着特死脑细胞，可能是逻辑性强吧．相反，我写的东西总是太浅薄．５５５５５５５～～～～

The arguer concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To bolster the assertion, the arguer cites the following facts that after the collision， the gravitation can hold gases and water vapor and then the water can falling (fall, can 后面加动词原形)on the surface of the Earth. Additionally, the comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, the argument is logically flawed in several respects.

First of all, there is no evidence shows ( to show)that earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks. Even today, there still are two saying ( there are still two theories about…saying 感觉不太正式) about the origin of the earth. It is possible that earth has been existent at the very beginning of the universe. Moreover, no evidence shows that the gravitation is strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it. Even if they can form the atmosphere, the form of ocean could also be difficult. So the arguer's assumption about the collision of space rocks fails to convince us that the conclusion can lead the ocean.

Secondly, the arguer mentions that the water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere and falling as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of earth. However, that is not necessary the case,（好用法！） the falling water might not cooled and solidified on the surface of Earth. Perhaps it has vaporized again according to the left heat of the striking. It is also possible that the volume of the ice in comets is not sufficient to form the ocean on the Earth. Without considering and ruling out such possible reasons, the arguer's assumption that the ice of the comets can cause the form of oceans is baseless.

Finally, even the assumption about the collision above is correct. The （ is correct, the..）fact that the comets are made up of frozen water and gases (may have little to do with the formation of the oceans) says little about the water in Earth's oceans. It is possible that the main part of the ocean has existent before the collision. And the collision of the comets only increases the area of the ocean. It is also possible that the collision boost the ice under the Earth to come into being ocean. To the extent that this is the case(再想想看。。), the arguer's assumption that the comets generate the Earth’s oceans is groundless.

In sum, the arguer's assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer must provide more evidence that the ice of the comets is adequate to form the ocean and there isn't any ocean on the Earth before the collision. To better evaluate the assumption, I would need to known more about that whether the Earth is formed as a result of collision.

8错8错
互猛拍啊：）　　
argument50   https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

esmeirasUID: 202885

啊？
我在word 里改的是兰色的，怎么到这里都是黑色了啊，T_T

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

那个，esmeiras ,变色是用了一个叫V3 的软件，寄托置顶帖里有下

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

对了，esmeiras ，你怎么看男生女生的？我都看不出来贴子上哪里有。还有，你能不能帮我看一下逻辑、句式或者所找的错误对不对，我觉得那个是写作水平提高的关键，当然，拍拍小苍蝇也很重要啦，笑

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

The arguer concludes that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets. To bolster the assertion, the arguer cites the following facts that after the collision， the gravitation can hold gases and water vapor and then the water can falling on the surface of the Earth. Additionally, the comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases.[这里加半句，which form the oceans at last 如何？] Close scrutiny of each of these facts, the argument is logically flawed in several respects[aspects].[ Close scrutinized  each of these facts, we can find that  the argument is logically flawed in several aspect.好点不？]

First of all, there is no evidence shows that earth was[ being 去掉]formed out of the collision of space rocks. Even today, there still are two saying about the origin of the earth. It is possible that earth has been existent at the very beginning of the universe. Moreover, no evidence shows that the gravitation is strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it. Even if they can form the atmosphere, the form of ocean could also be difficult. So the arguer's assumption about the collision of space rocks fails to convince us that the conclusion can lead the ocean. [这段怎么批的呀，不太明白，我同意地球的起源可以批，但是明明地球的重力能抓住空气，形成大气是事实啊，怎么又变成批这个了？]

Secondly, the arguer mentions that the water vapor would have been retained in the atmosphere and falling as rain on the cooled and solidified surface of earth. However, that is not necessary the case, the falling water might not cooled and solidified on the surface of Earth. Perhaps it has vaporized again according to the left heat of the striking. It is also possible that the volume of the ice in comets is not sufficient to form the ocean on the Earth. Without considering and ruling out such possible reasons, the arguer's assumption that the ice of the comets can cause the form of oceans is baseless.

Finally, even the assumption about the collision above is correct. The fact that the comets are made up of frozen water and gases says little about the water in Earth's oceans. It is possible that the main part of the ocean has existent before the collision. And the collision of the comets only increases the area of the ocean. It is also possible that the collision boost the ice under the Earth to come into being ocean. To the extent that this is the case, the arguer's assumption that the comets generate the Earth’s oceans is groundless.

In sum, the arguer's assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer must provide more evidence that the ice of the comets is adequate to form the ocean and there isn't any ocean on the Earth before the collision. To better evaluate the assumption, I would need to known more about that whether the Earth is formed as a result of collision.
[其他都挺好的，也没有什么错误，就是前面我提出来的问题可以再交流一下]

esmeirasUID: 202885

quote: 对了，esmeiras ，你怎么看男生女生的？我都看不出来贴子上哪里有。还有，你能不能帮我看一下逻辑、句式或者所找的错误对不对，我觉得那个是写作水平提高的关键，当然，拍拍小苍蝇也很重要啦，笑

男生写的东东模版味很重, 开始看上去呢,觉得是很8错滴,可看进去一点点就会猛拍苍蝇, 再下一步,仔细看看想理解里面的关系,那个难啊,简直是人间酷刑~~~~:) 偶拍过的几篇啊, 到后面只觉得血往脑袋上冲 :)  说实话,我是觉得有点痛苦滴..~~~:)   

这可能一方面是因为鄙人头脑简单,但肯定也与表达的的不到位有关啊. 像  ETS 的范文,大家看着一点也不费力啊. 深入浅出才是境界...~~~~  ^0^

zjcq2002, 以后相互猛拍哈:)  你说的几点我会尽量做的!

shengzhongbellUID: 199083

对，第二段是有点瞎写，当时没读懂题目，就抓句话乱批

edgarluUID: 203648

回拍
The arguer assert that it is the comet [that] the original source of the water in Earth 's ocean comes from. In order to support this argument, he cites the origin of the planet is a place where no water can retain and reasons to the assertion that the water is brought by the comets after the forming of the planet. However, I contend that there are several flaws which are open to doubt.

First of all, There is no evidence that in the formation of the earth, the water present would go into the space. In this subject, the arguer does not give the experimental statistics to show that the earth was born as a molten one. Maybe it is born as a solid one or some other states, which is still unknown. The research of the original of the Earth is not accurate [which] may lead to the unconvincing reasoning of the following steps and at last, make a wrong conclusion. In a word. without the accurate basis of this assumption, it is not reasonable to say that the water is from the outer space. 个人觉得，除了指责它胡说八道血口喷人之外，在对方的论据——碰撞和increasing gravitional energy产生的热量方面也应该稍微论述一下

Secondly, is it the comets which bring the necessary water to the atmosphere by striking is still open to doubt. There may have other ways to retain water in the planet ,for instance, the water maybe contained in the rocks, which did not release the water under specific circumstance. The arguer has ignored the other means to retain water such as what I have assumed above and put no valid research result or statistics to show that the comets are the only way to bring to water to the Earth, which may lead to a arbitrary conclusion. [这一点和上面一点其实就是一点——水也可能是本地特产；还有comet是a way of bringing in water 而不是 a way of retain water, 把它和the other means to retain water放在一起有点冤枉它了]了

Thirdly, granting that what the arguer has asserted  above is valid, the  water from the comets sufficient enough to cool and solidify the surface of Earth? The water from the outer space may be limit and is not enough to cool and solidify the surface of the Earth which may cause another problem in resulting to the assertion. [题目当中没说是水cool and solidify地球的啊？] If the planet is cooled and solidified by other means and the water is limit, which will lead to a question that ,is there enough comets to strike the Earth and bring the large quantity of water which covers the 70 percent of the planet today? The arguer has ignored the assumption and does not give us the convincing evidence to trust that the comets has brought enough water to cool the planet and form the ocean nowadays. [读题目出现理解偏差了]

In all, the arguer need more evidence such as the careful and accurate studying of the Earth, the means which may retain water in the childhood of the Earth and the quantity and the possibility of the comets to bring enough water to the Earth to prove his assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from the comets.


总体感觉：
红字部分是不当用词，时态语态错误没有标，比较多。
三点茬其实只有一点，第三点读题偏差
加油，继续努力

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

谢谢edgarlu ，第三点的问题我也发现了，后果很严重：（，不过第一点上我批的是地球的起源，应该和水的产出地不是同一个概念吧？

bingwaterUID: 2116559

我也来说说我的看法：
1。 我觉得你的第三点Thirdly, granting that what the arguer has asserted  above is valid, the  water from the comets sufficient enough to cool and solidify the surface of Earth? 有点牵强，文中并没有提到是彗星的水份使地球表面的温度降低的哦？(不知道你是怎么理解的)，不过你提到彗星水分不足以提供70％海洋的水分非常好(借用了，谢谢！)

2。文中有些句子太长了并且没有断句，读起来有点晦涩，比如说The water from the outer space may be limit and is not enough to cool and solidify the surface of the Earth which may cause another problem in resulting to the assertion 这里其实应该是一个非限制性定语从句得，所以which前应该用逗号.

3. If the planet is cooled and solidified by other means and the water is limit, which will lead to a question that ,is there enough comets to strike the Earth and bring the large quantity of water which covers the 70 percent of the planet today?这里应该用让步更好吧，可以将if 改成even if

我菜鸟一个，定时才写了300字，并且开头得模板就占了一大半，随便说说，交流而已，不当之处多多包涵！！！