Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "
alean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.In this argument, this arguer assumes that the wove basket does not uniquely belong to P. To support this argument, the arguer points out the wove basket were found not only in P but in L and assumes because there was a deep and wide river between P and L, the ancient Ps could crossed this river only by boat and no boats are found. This argument seems to be convicing at first glance, but close scrutiny reveals that there haven't been compelling evidences existint in this argument neither constituting a logical statement in support of the argument nor providing convicing support making this argument sound and unquestionable.The threshld assumption upon which the argument relies is that the author assumes that because of no boats found the ancient Ps hadn't crossed the river. Although it is entirely possible, but the argument lacks evidence to confirm the assumption. It is most likely that the boats once existing vanished and even no vestiges were left at all. For this matter, it is surposed that there could have found any boats. Therefore whether a boat was found or not has little bearings on the assumption that the ancient Ps had crossed the river. Untile the arguer provides further evidence to exclude these concerns above, it is unconvicing to come to conclusion involved in this argument.The second flaw that weakens the logic of this argument is that the author assumes the ancient Ps could crossed the river only by boat. Nevertheless, there is no gurantte that it is necessary case and it is quite possible that other instruments might be available and possible for the ancienr Ps' use. For example, may be a wood , without being regenerated, coud be used by the ancient Ps directly when crossing the river by. In short without better evidence ruling out thses and other explanations ,it is still reasonable to cast considerable doubt on this assumption. The last but not least point, even if the arguer can substantiated all of the foregoing assumptions, it is still unwaranted that the arguer alledge it is the ancient Ps that took the wove basket from P to L. Because the arguer fails to provide any powerful evidence to confirm this assumption, it is much more possible that it is other people either from other districts or many years later take baskets to L rather than the ancient Ps. Under any scenario, the arguer cannot force me to put my trust on this assumption.To sum up, this argument lacks credibility because evidences cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To bolster the argument , the arguer need to make further investation to make better understandind the the ancient's life. Additional more detailed statistics about the ancient Ps are necessary to be collected. Therefore if the arguer had taken these concerns above into account, this argument would be more comprehensively and logically acceptable.-- by 会员 arui2013 (2012/12/18 23:26:50)
In this argument, this arguer assumes thatthe wove basket does not uniquely belong to P. To support this argument, thearguer points out the wove basket were found not only in P but