Argument50 同主题；写得感觉很愧对自己的专业。。。虽然不是念地球物理之类的

chenda8201UID: 171368

------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 argument makes a false conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans has originated from comets based on some groundless assumptions.

At the first place, the arguer fails to prove that there are enough comets with enough water to strike the Earth and then form the Earth's oceans. Compare to the size of the Earth, most comets' sizes are so small and if the consumption that the arguer claims, the comets' water form the oceans' water on the Earth is true, then there should be millions of comets that had strike the Earth. But the arguer fails to show any details of this question.

Furthermore, the arguer claims that the water on the Earth should have evaporated when the Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks because of the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface. Perhaps the water restrain under the ground though the temperature of the Earth was very high at that time, the water had no place to go even it evaporated under the ground. In addition, there is no evidence support that the entire planet had been molten, even the surface. Therefore, it is possibility that a part of the Earth had high temperature and evaporated some water while other place of the planet might has a low temperature and the water there kept its form. If the assumption that the water on the Earth had evaporated at the early time when the Earth was in high temperature was proved, then there is probably that the water vapor might not escape and go off into space because when the water vapor raise, the temperature will drop and then the water vapor may become into water form and drop from the high space.

Last but not least, the water may be come from the circle of the creature's living or the chemical reaction or within the Earth or some other physical movement with other subjects such as other planets came from the deep space. Besides, the comets strike may just cause the impact to the Earth and cause some chemical reactions and create the water and then form the oceans. That is an open question.


To sum up, there are some logical false in the arguer's claim and a new conclusion can be drew until the new discoveries about the origin of the oceans' water on the Earth have been proved directly. (413)



.
..
...

11yvetteUID: 2102418

全文都没怎么用模板,赞!
The argument makes a false conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans has originated from comets based on some groundless assumptions.

At the first place, the arguer fails to prove that there are enough comets with enough water to strike the Earth and then form the Earth's oceans. Compare to the size of the Earth, most comets' sizes are so small and if the consumption that the arguer claims, the comets' water form the oceans' water on the Earth is true, then there should be millions of comets that had strike the Earth. But the arguer fails to show any details of this question.大概的意思是明白了,但是说的太过简单,没有展开,若能再扩充一下,应该很能说明问题的

Furthermore, the arguer claims that the water on the Earth should have evaporated when the Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks because of the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface. 引述得稍微长了点Perhaps the water restrain under the ground though the temperature of the Earth was very high at that time, the water had no place to go even it evaporated under the ground. In addition, there is no evidence support that the entire planet had been molten, even the surface. Therefore, it is possibility that a part of the Earth had high temperature and evaporated some water while other place of the planet might has a low temperature and the water there kept its form. If the assumption that the water on the Earth had evaporated at the early time when the Earth was in high temperature was proved, then there is probably that the water vapor might not escape and go off into space because when the water vapor raise, the temperature will drop and then the water vapor may become into water form and drop from the high space. 这一段分析得比较深入,如果在结尾或者开头能将作者结论部分"Therefore, the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets"再点一点,可能会更好,因为我们最终是要推翻他/她的这个结论

Last but not least, the water may be come from the circle of the creature's living or the chemical reaction or within the Earth or some other physical movement with other subjects such as other planets came from the deep space. Besides, the comets strike may just cause the impact to the Earth and cause some chemical reactions and create the water and then form the oceans. That is an open question.在这一段中,对于水是从chemical reaction中产生是非常认同的,但是"creature's living"就不敢苟同了,如果那时就已经有了生物,那么水是早已经起源了

To sum up, there are some logical false in the arguer's claim and a new conclusion can be drew until the new discoveries about the origin of the oceans' water on the Earth have been proved directly.

可能楼主是限时写的吧,这个很admire啊~~~
如果有什么咱们可以讨论的,继续啊~~~

chenda8201UID: 171368

Originally posted by 11yvette at 2005-7-14 22:29
全文都没怎么用模板,赞!
The argument makes a false conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans has originated from comets based on some groundless assumptions.

At the first place, the arguer fai ...

我是老记不住那些模板的话。。。:L
不过，但愿能自己用自己的话把问题说清楚；
可是觉得真的挺不容易准确表达想说的:(

大概的意思是明白了,但是说的太过简单,没有展开,若能再扩充一下,应该很能说明问题的

在这一段中,对于水是从chemical reaction中产生是非常认同的,但是"creature's living"就不敢苟同了,如果那时就已经有了生物,那么水是早已经起源了

当时限时，很紧张，想到什么就说什么，也有些一时想不到的
题目就看了几遍然后用v2软件限时写
以为理科背景的人，对于这些也不用太过害怕吧～
可实际上就是写得一团糟，后来还要另外花时间改
不过像上述提到的那个creature's living 我当时确实没细想，瞄过同主题给出的材料貌似有提到这点，我一紧张看见字数还远不够就搬出来了；
后来修改也没太在意
多谢11yvette提出来～

这一段分析得比较深入,如果在结尾或者开头能将作者结论部分"Therefore, the water in Earth's oceans must have originated from comets"再点一点,可能会更好,因为我们最终是要推翻他/她的这个结论

我是觉得argument中每一段主要驳斥什么问题就驳斥那个问题好了，这点同issue是有区别的吧～；我是这么想的
要是写issue时，我会尽量像上述提到那样结束不忘点题吧～:handshake
不知可否？

另：已经把11yvette (ripple) 的argument50保存下来了；
待会抽空看看 :handshake～

11yvetteUID: 2102418

Originally posted by chenda8201 at 2005-7-14 22:47


我是老记不住那些模板的话。。。:L
不过，但愿能自己用自己的话把问题说清楚；
可是觉得真的挺不容易准确表达想说的:(

我觉得如果实在不能将自己的意思准确表达就套用稍许模板的语句，毕竟那些是比较精华的说～～


当时限时，很紧张，想到什么就说什么，也有些 ... [/quote]
我一直都没有限时啊～～～所有你能限时还是很赞的说，毕竟还有时间，限时多了，就不会很紧张了吧～～

关于点题的问题，也许我练的argument不多吧，我也不知道具体的套路应该怎样，不过呵呵，说清楚就行～～
以后多互助，共进步啊～～:handshake

shanekunUID: 2104358

The argument makes a false conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans has originated from comets based on some groundless assumptions.

At the first place, the arguer fails to prove that there are enough comets with enough water to strike the Earth and then form the Earth's oceans. Compare to the size of the Earth, most comets' sizes are so small and if the consumption(assemption?) that the arguer claims, the comets' water form the oceans' water(oceans) on the Earth is true, then there should be millions of comets that had strike the Earth. But the arguer fails to show any details of this question.(个人感觉着一条并不够convincing，至少不是最薄弱的一环，地球的历史也很长，这个数目不惊人，)

Furthermore, the arguer claims that the water on the Earth should have evaporated when the Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks because of the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface. (这句好长阿，我的一个长句曾被批评：读下来就断气了:L，而且和题目有重合，不如断句改一下，)Perhaps the water restrain under the ground though the temperature of the Earth was very high at that time, the water had no place to go even it evaporated under the ground.(这句读起来不顺，不如调一下语序，perhaps the water vapor restrained under the shell got no pathway out, due to ...........thus the vapor of water had to .....) In addition, there is no evidence support that the entire planet had been molten, even the surface. (题目没说吗，疑问？)Therefore, it is possibility possible that a part of the Earth had high temperature and evaporated some water while other place of the planet might has a low temperature and the water there kept its form. If the assumption that the water on the Earth had evaporated at the early time when the Earth was in high temperature was proved, then there is probably that the water vapor might not escape and go off into space because when the water vapor raise, the temperature will drop and then the water vapor may become into water form and drop from the high space. (这里的论证有质疑阿rguement的条件嫌疑)

Last but not least, the water may be come from the circle of the creature's living(biosphere or ecosphere) or the chemical reaction or within the Earth or some other physical movement with other subjects such as other planets came from the deep space. Besides, the comets strike may just cause the impact to the Earth and cause some chemical reactions and create the water and then form the oceans. (good，more details.....:victory:.)That is an open question.


To sum up, there are some logical false in the arguer's claim and a new conclusion can be drew until the new discoveries about the origin of the oceans' water on the Earth have been proved directly. (这里的logical false也太泛了点，fail to rule out /consider other explanation/possibilities)(413)


感觉第一个false不够有说服力，不如rearrange the bodies.......不过也怪这个题目太bt:mad:，我30分钟才码了320字，汗。。。。。请狠拍！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D5

chenda8201UID: 171368

Originally posted by shanekun at 2005-7-15 02:03
if the consumption(assemption? )that the arguer claims

是assumption，当时打错了～

(个人感觉着一条并不够convincing，至少不是最薄弱的一环，地球的历史也很长，这个数目不惊人，)

其实这是一条很重要的fallacy的，我应该将millions 改成billions 估计好过些；因为comets与Earth的体积质量相差太大了，确实需要亿数量级的comets来strike才有可能真的形成the Earth's oceans 的，很多资料也正是转述 scientists 通过这点来驳斥这个理论的
地球的历史很长，大概46亿年，所以换成 billions 就容易令人convince了吧～

Furthermore, the arguer claims that the water on the Earth should have evaporated when the Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks because of the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface. (这句好长阿，我的一个长句曾被批评：读下来就断气了:L，而且和题目有重合，不如断句改一下，)

呵呵～说得是；限时的时候一紧张，而看着字数才那么点，于是慌乱中就照着题目的话搬了。。。
我想了一下，改成——
Furthermore, the arguer claims that the water on the Earth should have evaporated at the early stage of the Earth's born, which was formed out of the collision of space rocks.
然后那个the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface就不提到，等下面那个in addition来说

In addition, there is no evidence support that the entire planet had been molten, even the surface. (题目没说吗，疑问？)

我的意思是说这里没有提供足够的证据来证明the entire planet had been molten, even the surface
看来我是没把话用英文说清楚，改成——
In addition, there is no evidence support adequately that the arguer claims, the entire planet had been molten, even the surface because of the heat from those collisions and from the increasing and gravitational energy of the planet, is true.
所以我想这里的驳斥点是没有问题的，对于下面引用说到这点应该是没有的；因为前面提到的这点不算argument的条件吧～

(这里的论证有质疑阿rguement的条件嫌疑)

(这里的logical false也太泛了点，fail to rule out /consider other explanation/possibilities)

嗯～说得是！
整个结尾改写成——
To sum up, the arguer fails to lend strong support to prove that the Earth's oceans originated from the Comets and rule out some other ways that the water came from.

hihifrankyUID: 2115524

The argument makes a false conclusion that the water in Earth's oceans has originated from comets based on some groundless assumptions.

At the first place, the arguer fails to prove that there are enough comets with enough water to strike the Earth and then form the Earth's oceans. Compare to [Compared with] the size of the Earth, most comets' sizes are so small and if the consumption that the arguer claims, the comets' water form the oceans' water on the Earth is true, then there should be millions of comets that had strike [struck] the Earth. But the arguer fails to show any details of this question. [和11yvette的意见一样]

Furthermore, the arguer claims that the water on the Earth should have evaporated when the Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks because of the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten, even the surface. Perhaps the water restrain rest under the ground though the temperature of the Earth was very high at that time, the water had no place to go even it evaporated under the ground. [懂你的意思，但表达的怪怪的] In addition, there is no evidence support [to support] that the entire planet had been molten, even the surface. Therefore, it is possibility [possible] that a [去掉] part of the Earth had high temperature and evaporated some water while other place of the planet might has a low temperature and the water there kept its form. If the assumption that the water on the Earth had evaporated at the early time when the Earth was in high temperature was proved, then there is probably that the water vapor might not escape and go off into space because when the water vapor raise, the temperature will drop and then the water vapor may become into water [liquid] form and drop from the high space. [可能我跟不上你的思维，不知你想说明的是什么问题]

Last but not least, the water may be come from the circle of the creature's living [同意11yvette的观点] or the chemical reaction or within the Earth or some other physical movement with other subjects such as other planets came from the deep space. Besides, the comets strike may just cause the impact to the Earth and cause some chemical reactions and create the water and then form the oceans. That is an open question.


To sum up, there are some logical false in the arguer's claim and a new conclusion can be drew until the new discoveries about the origin of the oceans' water on the Earth have been proved directly. (413)

[可能是限时的原因吧，没把你的水平发挥出来]

alcestisUID: 2101945

记得我昨天回过贴怎么不见了~~ 这样多人拍过你了 我的意见也大致类似
拍你下一篇……

jst123363273UID: 2220930

提纲：

1.爆炸形成地球时,虽然地球从里到外很热,但是不能排除有一部分水保留在地球内部,而且在地球引力足够大的时候,从内部释放出来

2.地球虽然是碰撞形成的,但并不意味着地球形成之后仍然和其他行星或者彗星相撞,这样地球上的水可能有其他的来由

3.就算是承认地球形成之后仍然与其他空间飞行物包括含有大量水分的彗星相撞,但是没有证据表明这时地球已经有足够大的引力将这些水保留在自己的大气层中.

4.作者没有排除其他行星也含有水的可能性,也没有排除与其他虽然不含水的行星但是相撞过程中的副产品中有水的可能性

5.作者认为地球上的水是外来物带来的,没有排除地球自身能够产生水的可能性.这样地球上的水可能最初始于地球自身,而在此之后的碰撞(我们承认碰撞)产生的水只是地球水的补充,已经谈不上origin了