鄙人牛刀小试，套用先辈灵感，望各路大侠指教

derekbaruch

In this argument, the argument advocates that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact  ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.


In the first place, the arguer assumes that the residents of Palea actually never come to Brlm. Although this is entirely possible, but the arguer doesn't provide any exact evidence to prove that there is no any possibility that P didn't come here. Although Palean aren't capable of go across the river, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate that going across the river is the only way to get here. Arguer points out that the river is very deep and Palean did not have boats, or boats appeared after existence of Palean. Firstly, however, the arguer doesn't provide any situation of the river in prehistory, it is highly possible that the big river didn't exist in the prehistory or was very shallow. In addition, even if there is no evidence to show that Palean had boats, and big boats did not exist in that age, Palean are likely use some simple tools to get across the river, such as boards. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convice me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.


In the second place, the arguer assumes that the waved baskets must be made by Palean people, because the baskets appeared in Brlm. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. The arguer thinks that Palean people didn't come here, so these baskets did not belong to  alean people, so there were others have these waved baskets. Even if Palean people didn't come here before, the arguer does not rule out the possibility that others could bring these baskets to Palea, such as local people living there or the later generation.To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain. Apart from these discussed above, carbon isotope marking method can be used to confirm the age of the remains, and then to which one appeared more early.


To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.


Palea 的居民的确没有来过这里。但是论者没有提供任何确切的资料证明这里没有 P 来过的痕迹,虽然 P 无法过河,但论者也没有告诉我们是否只有过河,P 才能到这里。论者指出河很深,而 P 没有船,大船的出现也在 P 之后。但是首先论者没有提供关于史前时代这条河的状况,有可能这条大河在史前时代并不存在,或是很浅。第二虽然没有证据表明 P 有船,而那个时代也没有大船,但 P 有可能使用一些简便的类似船的工具过河,比如木板。这些都可以使 P 达到这里。2.篮子出现在 Brim,一定是 Palea 的居民所为。 论者认为 P 没有到过这里,所以这些篮子不是 P 的,篮子也就不只 P 有。但是就算 P没有到过这里,论者也没有提供证据证明其他人不会把 P 的篮子带到这里来,比如说这里人,比如后人。3.除此之外,可以同过 C 同位素标记法来确定遗物年代,进而判断出谁更早些

竹林中人

记得要把完整题目和提纲一起上上来啊，下次

竹林中人

首段过于简单，首段要对题目的结论和依据做一个简单的概述，然后得出自己结论的时候需要对instruction有所回应

竹林中人

中间段段内分析的比较好，这种分析在于找出题目中结论和依据之间存在的前提或者是假设，然后下结论这个假设是不合理的。
但中间只有两段，有点少
最后语法错误还是有几处，although和but不能连用，这应该不能错

derekbaruch

十分感谢，我以后尽量以1＋3＋1的格式写，这次是第一次写，还是文字功底不够。