argument: Woven baskets 求各位大虾打分!

arui2013 · 发表于 2012-12-18 23:26:50

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.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-12-19 00:40:48

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 also in L and assumes（assume是假定的意思，按说后面的内容应当是虚的） because therewas a deep and wide river between P and L, the ancient Ps could cross thisriver only by boat but no boats are found. Thisargument seems to be convincing at first glance, butclose scrutiny reveals that there haven't been compelling evidences existint inthis argument neither constituting a logical statement in support of theargument nor providing convincing support making this argument sound andunquestionable.这一整句话没必要说这么复杂，neither nor后面的内容其实是一个意思。The thresholdassumption upon which the argument relies is that the author assumes thatbecause of no boats found the ancient Ps hadn't crossed the river.这句话最好精简下，前面有了assumption后面又有一个assume，不必这么凑字数的。 Although it is entirely possible, but the argument lacks evidence toconfirm the assumption.这句话是多余的。 It is most likely that the boats once existing vanished and even novestiges were left at all. For this matter, it is supposedthat there could have found any boats. Therefore whether a boat wasfound or not has little bearings on the assumption that the ancient Ps hadcrossed the river. Until the arguer provides further evidence toexclude these concerns above, it is unconvincing to come to conclusion involvedin this argument.
The second flaw that weakens the logic ofthis argument is that the author assumes the ancient Ps could cross the river only by boat. Nevertheless, there isno guarantee that it is necessary case and it isquite possible that other instruments might be available and possible for the ancientPs' use. For example, may be a wood , withoutbeing regenerated, coud be used by the ancient Ps directly when crossing the river by. In short without betterevidence ruling out these and other explanations, it is still reasonable tocast considerable doubt on this assumption.
The last but not leastpoint, even if the arguer can substantiated all of the foregoing assumptions,it is still unwaranted that the arguer allege it is the ancient Ps that tookthe wove basket from P to L. Because the arguer fails to provide any powerfulevidence to confirm this assumption,这前面太多废话 it is much more possible that it isother people either from other districts or many years later take baskets to Lrather than the ancient Ps. Under any scenario, the arguer cannot force me toput my trust on this assumption.
To sum up, this argument lacks credibilitybecause evidences cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what thearguer maintains. To bolster the argument, the arguer needsto make further investation to make better understanding the ancient's life.Additional more detailed statistics about the ancient Ps are necessary to becollected. Therefore if the arguer had taken these concerns above into account,this argument would be more comprehensively and logically acceptable.
1. 你的语言太不精练了，内容少可以，但不能因为少而写太多的废话。
2. 这个argument可以质疑的地方挺多的，除了你的三点，还有就是这条河是不是一直在那儿，或者说一直是这么宽这么深
3. 段内内容，我想你能好好学习下OG上的范文或者之前的北美GRE范文，这篇文章的instruction是要求写evidence的，那么你的语言表述和组织需要对此有回应，但你一直写的是assumption，第二点中倒是略微提到了evidence

[argument] argument: Woven baskets 求各位大虾打分!

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()