argument50 G-89-互助社－８.８我贴我贴

melinda2036UID：2108044

50From a draft textbook manuscript submitted to a publisher.
"AI V  j?f
"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."
   The water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets
In this argument, the arguer addresses his or her conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets. To support this argument, the arguer states that the heat from the collisions of space rocks and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the water present evaporating at that time. The comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases. A comet striking Earth would have vaporized and turned into rain after the Earth’s gravitation become strong enough to hold gases and water vapor. This argument is based on fault analogy and suffers from several critical logical flaws.

First of all, the arguer indicates that Earth came to the stage of holding gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere firstly, then a comet which is made up of frozen water and gases stroked the Earth. The arguer assumes that a comet striking came after the planet approached its current size to hold the water provided by the comet. However, he or she provides no such related documents or reference to illustrate that there really was a comet striking came after Earth’s gravitation strong enough. It is doubtful whether there was such special striking or whether there was a comet striking. If the comet striking came before Earth’s gravitation became strong enough to hold water or gases, then the water in Earth’s ocean may not have originated from comets. Without the relevant reference to support, the whole argument is groundless.

Secondly, assuming that there was once or twice such striking, there is no indication that the striking can really provide water to Earth. The water contained in the comet under normal condition may change into other substances in the process of collision. All knows it that under such circumstance of collision, it is so easy for substances to set off some chemical reactions and transformed into other forms. So after striking, there may be no water left. The arguer fails to present the chain material to show that the comet really provided water to Earth.

Finally, there is another flaw in this argument. The arguer states early that the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten and any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space. A comet striking is also a collision, even lacking the heat from the increasing gravitational energy, the water may also have evaporated and gone off into space. This possibility further weakens the whole argument.

In summary, the argument is based on the arguer’ assumption instead of analogical thinking or deducing from the relevant documents or reference. In order to enhance his or her argument, the arguer should provide the material to support that there were really some comets striking and these striking really provide water to Earth. Without this information available, the whole argument is unconvincing and inadequate.

OB叔UID：188695

UP

Smile_IreneUID：198388

占个座，这就看

Smile_IreneUID：198388

In this argument, the arguer addresses his or her conclusion that the water in Earth’s oceans must have originated from comets. To support this argument, the arguer states that the heat from the collisions of space rocks and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the water present evaporating at that time. The comets are largely ice made up of frozen water and gases. A comet striking Earth would have vaporized and turned into rain after the Earth’s gravitation become strong enough to hold gases and water vapor. This argument is based on fault analogy and suffers from several critical logical flaws.

First of all, the arguer indicates that firstly,（是不是要表达首先地球……然后彗星……？我觉得应把firstly放前面) Earth came to the stage of holding gases and water vapor around it as an atmosphere, then a comet which is made up of frozen water and gases stroked the Earth. The arguer assumes that a comet striking came after the planet approached its current size by which it can hold the water provided by the comet. However, he or she provides no such related documents or reference to illustrate it is certain that there was a comet striking came after Earth’s gravitation being strong enough. It is doubtful whether there was such special striking or whether there was a comet striking. If the comet striking came before Earth’s gravitation became strong enough to hold water or gases, then the water in Earth’s ocean may not have originated from comets. Without the relevant reference to support, the whole argument is groundless.（个人觉得这道题目中对于彗星是在地球形成足够的size之前还是之后的讨论最好不要，主要论证在地球形成足够的size后是不是有彗星撞地球，否则会降低说理力度）

Secondly, assuming that there was once or twice such striking, there is no indication that the striking can really（最好换个词） provide water to Earth. The water contained in the comet under normal condition may change into other substances in the process of collision. All knows it that under such circumstance of collision, it is so easy for substances to set off some chemical reactions and transformed into other forms. So after striking, there may be no water left. The arguer fails to present the chain material to show that the comet really provided water to Earth.

Finally, there is another flaw in this argument. The arguer states early that the heat from those collisions and from the increasing gravitational energy of the planet made the entire planet molten and any water present would have evaporated and gone off into space. A comet striking is also a collision, even lacking the heat from the increasing gravitational energy, the water may also have evaporated and gone off into space. This possibility further weakens the whole argument.（这段有点站不住脚，作者说过after the Earth’s gravitation become strong enough to hold gases and water vapor.）
In summary, the argument is based on the arguer’ assumption instead of analogical thinking or deducing from the relevant documents or reference. In order to enhance his or her argument, the arguer should provide the material to support that there were really some comets striking and these striking really provide water to Earth. Without this information available, the whole argument is unconvincing and inadequate.

加油！:)

melinda2036UID：2108044

谢谢你的修改，我第四段可能没时间了，没写得太清楚，我的意思是既然碰撞产生的热会让水蒸发，彗星撞地球也算碰撞，也有可能让水蒸发掉，即使地球重力已经稳定，确实由地球增加重量产生的热．　你的第二段的意见很中肯呀，我没注意到．