Argument1，求大牛指点

Apriori · 发表于 2012-3-18 10:41:49

1.Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern havepreviously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed tohave been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologistsdiscovered such a "

alean" basket in Lithos, an ancient villageacross the Brim River from Palea. The Brim Riveris very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it onlyby boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that theso-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.

Writea response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluatethe argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen theargument.

字数373（连400都不到，我弱爆了T_T）
The argument concludes that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Although it's reasonable seemingly, additional evidences are needed to evaluate it.

First, the survival period of the twoacient villages Palea and Lithos should be judged. If Lithos appeared after Palea had vanished, we could assert that the Palean baskets could only be made by the Palean people. Only when Palea and Lithos coexisted for some time orPalea appeared after Lithos, it could be possible that the Palean baskets couldbe made in Lithos.

Additionally, we also need to attest the Brim Riverreally exists in the ancient time. As we know, after millions of years changing, seas could be turned into mountains and mountains could also be turned into seas. Or the Brim Rivermight be formed by digging for defensive purpose in a recent war. So the Brim Riverwhich now connects Palea and Litho might not exist before and there could beplain instead. Thus, Palean people could easily walk to Lithos, bringing their baskets there.

Assuming the two villages, including the Brim River, all existed at the same time, we need to consider more about the possible travel ways between Palea and Lithos. Did there once be a bridge over theriver, or were there other pathways from Palea to Lithos? If there're evidencesthat lead to positive answer of any of these two questions, then Palean people might take the baskets to Lithos themselves, either by crossing the bridge, travelling by drift, or climbing the mountains for example. There's no need to use a boat as the travel tool. We might also want to know whether Lithos had boat at that time. Supposing Palea had no way to Lithos except for crossing the Brim River by boat, if Lithos possessed one, they could leave for Palea and took the baskets home. In each above situation, the baskets are made in Palea, and then be taken to Lithos by either people ofthe two villages.

In conlusion, to evaluate the argument whether the Palean baskets were uniquely Palean, we could get evidence for the possible pathways from Palea to Lithos or vice versa, along with the existing period of the two villages of the Brim River.

Apriori · 发表于 2012-3-18 10:58:53

我的提纲：
a. 村庄关系：L在P之后才出现？
b. 地理因素：河在之前是否存在？
c. 交通方式：河上是否有桥，L是否有船，P和L之间是否有其它通路比如山等

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-3-18 22:19:01

你的第一段可以充实下，指出题目的结论和它的支持性依据，然后说它是不靠谱。另外每一个质疑点，你要做的是指出不合理点，指出为什么不合理，再接着说说其他的解释或者可能性。这样的你的中间段落会很充实，最后注意结构之间环环相扣，Argument就很好了。

Apriori · 发表于 2012-3-18 23:31:17

谢谢大牛指教！我再去研究下evidence这种应该如何写~

Apriori · 发表于 2012-5-21 23:36:00

修改版：（隔了这么久才回头改，真惭愧，麻烦版主有空再帮我看下吧！不知道这样写是不是就符合instruction的要求了）
Relying on certain facts, this argument concludes that the Palean baskets are not uniquely Palean and it might have been made in Lithos as well. Carefully scrutinized the reasoning, the argument turns out to be insufficient in its supporting evidence.

First of all, based on the fact that there is a deep and broad river between Palea and Lithos, the argument therefore suggests that the Paleans could only make their way to Lithos by crossing the river. However, the argument doesn't give detailed information about whether the Brim River already existed during prehistoric time. It's very possible that there was no river in remote antiquity and after millions years of plate shifting and geographic changing the river began to form and appear what it looks like today. If that's the case, the baskets might be taken to Lithos just by walking, which would certainly weaken the conclusion of the argument.

Secondly, even if the river really existed in the distant past, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Paleans could have to cross it only by boat. It's entirely possible that once on the river there was a bridge which had been destructed by earthquakes or wars later. Unless given the evidence that there's no other ways to get to Lithos other than by boat, it cannot convince me that the baskets were not uniquely Lithos.

Finally, the argument wrongly equates the way the baskets moving to Lithos with that the Paleans cross the river. Under the circumstance that the there're no boats for the Paleans to take their baskets to Lithos, there're other pathways for a Palean basket to appear in Lithos. For example, the basket could drift by themselves and arrived at Lithos naturally, or the people in Lithos could possess a large boat and they used to traveling to Palea to trade with them for baskets or simply plunder the baskets from the Pleans. If a self-drifting of the basket can be proved be true or a boat belonging to Lithos is found, such evidence will completely lessen the strength of the argument.

In sum, without sufficient evidence, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To justify its conclusion, we probably need more facts such as whether the Brim River existed in the past, is there any other ways to get across it, and if people in Lithos had some boats. Any supporting evidence of the above would make the argument untenable.

提纲
a. 河之前可能存在，可能由于板块漂移或地理变化在以后形成
b. P有可能其它方式过河。如桥、木筏等。而桥可能在之后的地震或战争中损坏
c. P不能过河!=篮子不能过河。篮子可以漂流，L的人可能有船

[作文互改] Argument1，求大牛指点

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块