Argument50 同主题写作，尽管拍死我吧！

zhangleighostUID: 175136

------摘要------
作者：Zhangleighost     共用时间：29分50秒     493 words
从2005年6月16日10时3分到2005年6月16日10时32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------
In the draft textbook manuscript, the author made a conclusion that the Earth's water is originated fro the comets based on the following assumption. 1) The Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks. 2) The collision will collect so much energy that it would raise the temperature that caused the water to evaporate. 3) Because the comets are basically made of ice and gases, they would certainly become part of Earth's oceans. After careful scrutiny of the whole article, I find it unconvincing that I can not accept the conclusion based on these unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, the author based on an unproved scientific assumption that the Earth was formed out of the collision of space rocks. Till now, the origin of the Earth is under developing that no one could say definitely how the Earth is formed. Under such circumstance, it would be too early to draw the conclusion from this unwarranted foundation. If the author wants to convince me that the comets are part of origin of the Earth's oceans, he should provide warranted and enough information to show that the Earth is formed out of the collision of space rocks at first.

Secondly, the author failed to provide the exact information on how hot was it when the collision took place in the early stage of Earth's forming. To be exact, the author needs to provide the information that the temperature was high enough to melt the rocks and evaporate the water on it. Moreover, taking the air pressure into account, Higher pressure, higher temperature to evaporate the water. Without providing such information on some other factors rather than merely temperature assumption that it maybe evaporated the water, the author can not convince me the conclusion he drew.

Furthermore, How many and how big the comets were there hitting the Earth in the first stage of Earth's forming? It is entirely possible that there were nearly no comets which mostly made of ice and gases ending their trips in the Earth. If so, how could it say that the original oceans have originated from comets? Meanwhile, if the author’s conclusion is true, why don’t the comets which have ever striking the Earth strike the Earth now? Without ruling out such possibility that the comets striking the Earth is so small and mere that they could not even contribute anything to the forming of the Earth but some solid rocks, I still can not accept the conclusion that the author drew.

In conclusion, this is a weak argument in that it based on some assumptions that they are either unproved or insufficient. If the author wants to convince me his conclusion, he at least provide me the information on how many comets striking the Earth, the exact temperature and other factors such as air pressure that could prove the water could be evaporated, and the most important, the Earth was born with bang of some space rocks collisions.

火影忍者UID: 2113884

In the draft textbook manuscript, the author made a conclusion that the Earth's water is originated fro the comets based on the following assumption. 1) The Earth was being formed out of the collision of space rocks. 2) The collision will collect so much energy that it would raise the temperature that caused the water to evaporate. 3) Because the comets are basically made of ice and gases, they would certainly become part of Earth's oceans. After careful scrutiny of the whole article, I find it unconvincing that I can not accept the conclusion based on these unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, the author based on an unproved scientific assumption that the Earth was formed out of the collision of space rocks. Till now, the origin of the Earth is under developing that no one could say definitely how the Earth is formed. Under such circumstance, it would be too early to draw the conclusion from this unwarranted foundation. If the author wants to convince me that the comets are part of origin of the Earth's oceans, he should provide warranted and enough information to show that the Earth is formed out of the collision of space rocks at first.

Secondly, the author failed to provide the exact information on how hot was it when the collision took place in the early stage of Earth's forming. To be exact, the author needs to provide the information that the temperature was high enough to melt the rocks and evaporate the water on it. Moreover, taking the air pressure into account, Higher pressure, higher temperature to evaporate the water. 这句看不懂，题干上讲的是地球及其表面融化的时候，其周围没有任何的空气吧，因为都成了蒸汽到宇宙中去了，没有空气也就没有pressure。Without providing such information on some other factors rather than merely temperature assumption that it maybe evaporated the water, the author can not convince me the conclusion he drew.

Furthermore, How many and how big the comets were there hitting the Earth in the first stage of Earth's forming? It is entirely possible that there were nearly no comets which mostly made of ice and gases ending their trips in the Earth. If so, how could it say that the original oceans have originated from comets? 在comet的大小方面没有多加描述。 Meanwhile, if the author’s conclusion is true, why don’t the comets which have ever striking the Earth strike the Earth now? 这句我觉得说服力不是很够，甚至与主要的驳斥点好像没有很大的关系，comet应该随时都有的吧。除非你说的那些大家伙们。Without ruling out such possibility that the comets striking the Earth is so small and mere that they could not even contribute anything to the forming of the Earth but some solid rocks, I still can not accept the conclusion that the author drew.

In conclusion, this is a weak argument in that it based on some assumptions that they are either unproved or insufficient. If the author wants to convince me his conclusion, he at least provide me the information on how many comets striking the Earth, the exact temperature and other factors such as air pressure that could prove the water could be evaporated, and the most important, the Earth was born with bang of some space rocks collisions.

以上乃私人看法，不好意思，有疑义的话就批评我吧。
你在30分钟内可以完成这样的argument，我暂时做不到。

zhangleighostUID: 175136

“Moreover, taking the air pressure into account, Higher pressure, higher temperature to evaporate the water“ 这句话我发现逻辑我找错了！应该删掉，谢谢忍者。

在comet大小方面，我应该加上一句话“Take Comet Hale-Bopp for example; we need 30 to 40 million such comets to fill the oceans. However, the possibility of such a big comet striking the Earth happens so rarely that only once in hundreds of years. So, ....."

"Meanwhile, if the author’s conclusion is true, why don’t the comets which have ever striking the Earth strike the Earth now? 这句我觉得说服力不是很够，甚至与主要的驳斥点好像没有很大的关系，comet应该随时都有的吧。除非你说的那些大家伙们。"
你说我就按照你说的改如何？改成“Meanwhile, even though the Earth has ever striked by so many big comets with Hale-Bopp's size around, why don't they strike the Earth now?"
这样如何？

火影忍者UID: 2113884

嗯，感觉好多了，说实话我上作文班的时候我的那个老师说他最怕50，现在看了我真的也没有什么好的想法，毕竟专业的知识太少了，希望到时候不要抽到这样bt的题目
要不我真的要哭了哦 哦哦

skaterUID: 2116878

按说ETS出的题应该不用背景知识也能很好的攻击

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

楼主写得不错  帮俺看看吧  俺是菜鸟。。。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1