argument50 同主题 不限时

victor2005UID: 2106670

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------           325 words
The argument was well presented, but not well reasoned. It is vulnerable in several aspects.

Firstly, the arguer assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets is doubtable. It is very likely that the water in Earth's oceans came from others such as collision with other planets besides comets, vapor as by-products of volcano eruption, or chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. In short, many reasons could possibly contribute to the oceans formation.

Secondly, even if no other origins resulting in the formation of the water in the oceans, the assumption based on that the Earth's gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere because the planet approached its current size is unwarranted. Did the Earth approach its current size in the past? We know some Earth’s oceans were existed in the ancient time according to record. If the ancient Earth was so small that its gravitation was not strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around its, the water of the oceans should not have been from the comets. But no evidence in the argument shows that the Earth’ size in the past was as same as today

Finally, even if comets are only origins of the water in the Earth’ ocean, it could not necessarily convince us that comets could provide sufficient vapor becoming into water to fill the ocean? Perhaps the volume or the number of comets is not large enough to fill the Earth’s oceans. Perhaps there are not so many comets in the space, or the amount of vapor from comets produced by a collision is too small to offer enough water pooling the ocean even though there are many comets in the space.   

In summary, evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the conclusion. The arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the Earth, comet and the astrospace to strengthen the argument.

esmeirasUID: 202885

.The argument was well presented, but not well reasoned. It is vulnerable in several aspects.

Firstly, the arguer assertion that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets is doubtable. It is very likely that the water in Earth's oceans came from others  （other factors 指代更清楚些） such as collision with other planets besides comets, vapor as by-products of volcano eruption, or chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. In short, many reasons could possibly contribute to the oceans formation.

Secondly, even if no other origins resulting in（resulted in ）  the formation of the water in the oceans, the assumption based on that the Earth's gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere because the planet approached its current size is unwarranted. ( 句型做下调整会更好，前面句子已经很长， unwarranted 再放在后面显得有些头重脚轻) Did the Earth approach its current size in the past? We know some Earth’s oceans were existed in the ancient time according to record. If the ancient Earth was so small that its gravitation was not strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around its （its 是不对滴，it ，其实去掉也没有问题）, the water of the oceans should not have been from the comets. But no evidence in the argument shows that the Earth’ size in the past was as same as （ as same as 不太好吧？ the same as  or as big as ）today

Finally, even if comets are  only origins ( the only origin)  of the water in the Earth’ ocean, it could not necessarily convince us that comets could provide sufficient vapor becoming into water to fill the ocean?   (  ?  该 。  还有，becoming into water去掉会更简洁) Perhaps the volume or the number of comets is not large enough to fill the Earth’s oceans.（这句我怎么没想到呢？ 555555） Perhaps there are not so many comets in the space, or the amount of vapor from comets produced by a collision is too small to offer enough water pooling the ocean even though there are many comets in the space.   

In summary, evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the conclusion. The arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the Earth, comet and the astrospace （ 没这个词啊）to strengthen the argument.

思路很清晰，开头，第一点尤其好。 到后面体力不支了吧？  ：）  我昨晚写到后面烦死了，耗时太长了。:p
我的思路和你的差不多，也帮我拍拍，互相学习哦！:lol
Argument50   https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

yysuUID: 205455

我们似乎都没有能够把里面的逻辑错误弄清楚呀！
有必要列出来看看1

victor2005UID: 2106670

提纲：
1 地球水可能来自于彗星以外的原因，如与其他行星的撞击，火山喷发，化学作用
2 即使是和彗星撞击过，可能地球过去的体积不够大，以至于留不住水蒸气，那么海洋水源依旧不能说是来自于彗星的。
3 即使是来自彗星，怎么证明产生的蒸汽就一定足够形成海洋呢？毕竟海洋很大呢。

htpengUID: 2115584

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------           325 words
The argument was well presented, but not well reasoned. It is vulnerable in several aspects.
开头段可以介绍下作者的论点和论据,凑点字数
Firstly, the arguer assertion名字作谓语?? that the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets is doubtable. It is very likely that the water in Earth's oceans came from others such as collision with other planets besides comets, vapor as by-products of volcano eruption, or chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. In short, many reasons could possibly contribute to the oceans' formation.

Secondly, even if no other origins resulting in the formation of the water in the oceans, the assumption based on that the Earth's gravitation became strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere because the planet approached its current size is unwarranted. Did the Earth approach its current size in the past? We know some Earth’s oceans were existed in the ancient time according to record这句有点冗余,或者至少我没看明白作者写这句的意图If the ancient Earth was so small that its gravitation was not strong enough to hold gases and water vapor around its, the water of the oceans should not have been from the comets这里最好加上even comets did collide earth once. But no evidence in the argument shows that the Earth’ size in the past was as same as today

Finally, even if comets are only origins of the water in the Earth’ ocean, it could not necessarily convince us that comets could provide sufficient vapor becoming into water to fill the ocean?问号? fill the ocean实际没有必要 Perhaps the volume or the number of comets is not large enough to fill the Earth’s oceans. Perhaps there are not so many comets in the space, or the amount of vapor from comets produced by a collision is too small to offer enough water pooling the ocean even though there are many comets in the space.   

In summary, evidences cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the conclusion. The arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the Earth, comet and the astrospace to strengthen the argument.

[ Last edited by htpeng on 2005-7-14 at 22:46 ]

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

Originally posted by victor2005 at 2005-7-14 17:37
提纲：
1 地球水可能来自于彗星以外的原因，如与其他行星的撞击，火山喷发，化学作用
2 即使是和彗星撞击过，可能地球过去的体积不够大，以至于留不住水蒸气，那么海洋水源依旧不能说是来自于彗星的。
3 即使是 ...

从提纲看来，第一二点都是说的水的其他来源，虽然这是一个主要的批驳点，但是最好还是放在一起。
另外，第二点的“可能地球过去的体积不够大，以至于留不住水蒸气”好像在题目中提及到了，这样算不算是同意作者观点啊？

victor2005UID: 2106670

Originally posted by zjcq2002 at 2005-7-15 00:16

从提纲看来，第一二点都是说的水的其他来源，虽然这是一个主要的批驳点，但是最好还是放在一起。
另外，第二点的“可能地球过去的体积不够大，以至于留不住水蒸气”好像在题目中提及到了，这样算不算是同意作者 ...

应该不算吧，要找的是作者推理过程中的逻辑错误，这种是作者推理的大前提，公认的物理定律，即使同意也应该没错吧？你说呢？

victor2005UID: 2106670

Originally posted by htpeng at 2005-7-14 22:36
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 ener ...

我的意思是海洋在古代就存在了，但是那时的地球size是不是想现在一样大到足够能吧水蒸气吸住呢？如果不能，那么海洋水就不是从地球来的了。