Argument 1 求拍砖~~

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-11-10 20:26:01

Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistorical village of Palean and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologist discovered such a Palean basket in Lithos , an ancient village across the Brim River from Palean.The Brim River is very deep and board, and so the ancient Palean 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.
提纲：
1.现在有河流不代表以前也有。如果以前两个村庄是接壤的，那个篮子完全可能是在拜访的时候带过去的。——证据1：以前地形是什么样的
2.没有发现成型的船不代表P没有船。船可能是木头造的不适合保存。但是如果我们发现了可以用于造船的零件、工具，亦可以猜测他们有船。——证据2：以前有没有造船工具
3.其他：证据3：L有没有船。如果L有船，那大可以L来买完带回去。证据4：关于篮子的质地等其他特征。说不定是洪水带过去的呢..所以需要更多的细节信息，提供科学的证据来确定

The author concludes that the alleged Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean indeed by citing several evidence, which seemingly possesses instinct logical relation. However, the clues presented is far from sufficient to substantiate the author's conclusion, which requires more persuasive evidence.

Firstly, the speaker does not provide the evidence regarding whether the Brim River existed in prehistory or not, though the Brim River is relatively deep and board now. The argument is doomed to be undermined, if the Brim River didn't come into being before Palean created the so-called Palean basket. Without the Brim River, it is likely that the ancient Lithos bordered on Palean at the time, enabling the Palean people to visit Lithos anytime they were willing to. The very basket, which shares the same characteristics of Palean baskets was possibly introduced by the Palean during the visit from Palean to Lithos. Consequently, the speaker need to elaborate that the Brim River was also deep and board at the time.

Additionally, the author merely mentions that no Palean boats have been discovered by archaeologists without reciting that no instruments or components used in shipbuilding have been found hereunto. Thus, we cannot slapdash preclude the highly possible situation that the materials applicable to boats are not easy to preserve, which accounts for the failure of discovering Palean boats. Furthermore, if the archaeologists put forward with evidence that in Palean they excavate the tools and components, which are universally used in boats in prehistorical period, we can speculate the ancient Palean people were also equipped with the techniques to build boats.

Eventually, the argument lacks further evidence to exclude the possibility that the discovered baskets was introduced into Lithos by other potential channels. For instance, supplementary indicators are necessary to justify that the Lithos didn't have boats either, which prohibits people in Lithos to arrive at Palean. Otherwise, the baskets could be brought in Lithos during the frequent bilateral transaction between Lithos and Palean. Besides, more details concerning the Palean baskets, such as the materials, the texture are quite essential. It's because that there are numerous reasonable explanations to the archaeological discovery in Lithos, such as the accidental natural disasters like the flood. Only by applying scientific analysis approaches using significant details can the researchers precisely conclude where the baskets were produced. Therefore, detailed information and scientific results are conducive to identify the real origination of these baskets.

Conclusively, the argument is problematic in lacking strong and suffice evidence to establish the causality. To perfect the argument, the author are supposed to supplement the crucial evidence mentioned above and taking scientific methods to determine whether the Palean baskets are unique.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-10 22:21:41

The authorconcludes that the alleged Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean indeed byciting several evidences, which seemingly possesses instinct logicalrelation. However, the clues presented are far from sufficient to substantiate theauthor's conclusion, which requires more persuasive evidence.首段里面可以列写下题目的evidence，也可不写，看自己的时间

Firstly, the speaker does not providethe evidence regarding whether the Brim River existed in prehistory or not,though the Brim River is relatively deep and board now. The argument is doomedto be undermined, if the Brim River
didn't come intobeing before Palean created the so-called Palean basket. Without the Brim River,it is likely that the ancient Lithos bordered on Palean at the time, enablingthe Palean people to visit Lithos anytime they were willing to. The verybasket, which shares the same characteristics of Palean baskets, was possiblyintroduced by the Palean during the visit from Palean to Lithos. Consequently,the speaker need to elaborate that the Brim Riverwas also deep and board at the time.

Additionally, the author merely mentionsthat no Palean boats have been discovered by archaeologists without recitingthat no instruments or components used in shipbuilding have been foundhereunto. Thus, we cannot slapdash preclude the highly possible situation thatthe materials applicable to boats are not easy to preserve, which accounts forthe failure of discovering Palean boats. Furthermore, if the archaeologists putforward with evidence that in Palean they excavate the tools and components, whichare universally used in boats in prehistorical period, we can speculate theancient Palean people were also equipped with the techniques to build boats.

Eventually, the argument lacks furtherevidence to exclude the possibility that the discovered baskets were introducedinto Lithos by other potential channels. For instance, supplementary indicatorsare necessary to justify that the Lithos didn't have boats either, whichprohibits people in Lithos to arrive at Palean. Otherwise, the baskets could bebrought in Lithos during the frequent bilateral transaction between Lithos andPalean. Besides, more details concerning the Palean baskets, such as thematerials, the texture are quite essential. It's because that there arenumerous reasonable explanations to the archaeological discovery in Lithos,such as the accidental natural disasters like the flood. Only by applyingscientific analysis approaches using significant details can the researchersprecisely conclude where the baskets were produced. Therefore, detailedinformation and scientific results are conducive to identify the realorigination of these baskets.

Conclusively, the argument isproblematic in lacking strong and suffices evidence to establish the causality.To perfect the argument, the author is supposed to supplement the crucial evidencementioned above and taking scientific methods to determine whether the Paleanbaskets are unique.这篇argu不错，没有模板的痕迹。LZ继续加油，坚持写！

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-11-11 12:40:45

The authorconcludes that the alleged Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean indeed byciting several evidences, which seemingly possesses instinct logicalrelation. However, the clues presented are far from sufficient to substantiate theauthor's conclusion, which requires more persuasive evidence.首段里面可以列写下题目的evidence，也可不写，看自己的时间

Firstly, the speaker does not providethe evidence regarding whether the Brim River existed in prehistory or not,though the Brim River is relatively deep and board now. The argument is doomedto be undermined, if the Brim River
didn't come intobeing before Palean created the so-called Palean basket. Without the Brim River,it is likely that the ancient Lithos bordered on Palean at the time, enablingthe Palean people to visit Lithos anytime they were willing to. The verybasket, which shares the same characteristics of Palean baskets, was possiblyintroduced by the Palean during the visit from Palean to Lithos. Consequently,the speaker need to elaborate that the Brim Riverwas also deep and board at the time.

Additionally, the author merely mentionsthat no Palean boats have been discovered by archaeologists without recitingthat no instruments or components used in shipbuilding have been foundhereunto. Thus, we cannot slapdash preclude the highly possible situation thatthe materials applicable to boats are not easy to preserve, which accounts forthe failure of discovering Palean boats. Furthermore, if the archaeologists putforward with evidence that in Palean they excavate the tools and components, whichare universally used in boats in prehistorical period, we can speculate theancient Palean people were also equipped with the techniques to build boats.

Eventually, the argument lacks furtherevidence to exclude the possibility that the discovered baskets were introducedinto Lithos by other potential channels. For instance, supplementary indicatorsare necessary to justify that the Lithos didn't have boats either, whichprohibits people in Lithos to arrive at Palean. Otherwise, the baskets could bebrought in Lithos during the frequent bilateral transaction between Lithos andPalean. Besides, more details concerning the Palean baskets, such as thematerials, the texture are quite essential. It's because that there arenumerous reasonable explanations to the archaeological discovery in Lithos,such as the accidental natural disasters like the flood. Only by applyingscientific analysis approaches using significant details can the researchersprecisely conclude where the baskets were produced. Therefore, detailedinformation and scientific results are conducive to identify the realorigination of these baskets.

Conclusively, the argument isproblematic in lacking strong and suffices evidence to establish the causality.To perfect the argument, the author is supposed to supplement the crucial evidencementioned above and taking scientific methods to determine whether the Paleanbaskets are unique.这篇argu不错，没有模板的痕迹。LZ继续加油，坚持写！

-- by 会员竹林中人 (2012/11/10 22:21:41)

谢谢~~我想问下evidence什么时候可数，什么时候不可数啊

[作文互改] Argument 1 求拍砖~~

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()