- UID
- 578961
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-10-31
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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
‘Palean’ 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.
The author argued that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. To support his argument, the author stated that such a “Palean” Basket were also discovered in Lithos, from which the Brim River across. The author further stated that no Plaean boats, which are the only way to across the Brim River, have been found, implying that Palean baskets could not be sent to Lithos by Paleans. Although the statement appears reasonable at first glance, it is fraught with flaws and holes and specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument. Before providing such evidence, the author could not convince me that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
The first point, the author suggests that the ancient Paleans could have crossed the Brim River only by boat because it is very deep and broad. However, no evidence could indicate that the ancient Brim River was deep and broad as what it is been seen now. Since there is great gap between prehistory and contemporary, it’s quite possible that the ancient Brim River is totally different from the modern Brim River. If the ancient Brim River was shallow and narrow or there was even not a river between Palea and Lithos in prehistory, Paleans could have directly walked to Lithos bringing with “Paleans” baskets. In short, without evidence concerning the ancient Brim River, the author’s claim that Paleans could have cross it only by boat is dubious at best.
Then, the author claims that no Palean boats have been found implying the inability of Paleans to cross the Brim River. However, no Palean boats having been found does not necessarily suggest that there is no Palean boats in reality. It’s possible that archaeologistswill discoveryancient Palean boats or relics of Palean boats in future. Even though archaeologists could not prove the existence of Palean boats, there is a good chance that Palean boats or their relics have decayed and finally disappeared in the long river of history since Palean boats are quite possible made by woods. If archaeologists could discovery some instruments like stone ax in the vicinity of Palea which could be used to build boats, it’s more likely that Paleans grasped the boat building technology and could have crossed the river by boat.
Finally, the author’s assumption that woven baskets could only be taken by Paleans from Palea to Lithos is unsupported. Without evidence to support his assumption, the author fails to rule out the possibility that people living in Lithos have boats to cross the Brim River and bring the Palean baskets back to Lithos. It’s also possible that people living in place other than Palea and Lithos trade baskets from Palea to Lithos. To strength the argument, the author should offer evidence to rule out all of those possibilities.
In Summary, the conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to provide more evidence.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-12-10 21:30:42
收藏
收藏
楼主
