Argument001，求拍～～

lukeyu

001． 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.



The author intend to show a conclusion that the Palean baskets in history were not uniquely made in Palean through the recent discovery that such Palean baskets which were believed to have only made in Palea have been found in the village called Lithos and the fact that there had no Palean people ever come to Lithos; the relevant evidence and assumptions of the discovery, however, are relatively weak as to be lack of logic reasoning and deep insight.


In the argument the author shows us that the two villages are bounded by the Brim River. For the great depth and width of the river, the only transportation vehicle, in author’s opinion, is boat. In fact it is common sense that the Brim River may probably freeze in the winter of high-latitude area, which is enough solid and allows Palean citizens to walk or ride to the village Lithos. It is counterpart that there were also some Lithos citizens ever having visiting the village Palea; therefore, reasonably, it is very possible that the Palean citizens brought their characterized baskets to Lithos and left some of them in Lithos and that limited number of Lithos people bought some baskets for their daily use.


Besides, even though the assumption that the only vehicle between the two sides of the bank of the river is boat shall be correct, there may still be possibilities that Lithos citizens commuted to Palea by their own boat and parts of the Palean citizens preferred to take this boat to Lithos rather than utilize Palean boat. In this situation the Palean boat may not be discovered and the baskets processed the transportation medium to go to Lithos, which provides the reasonable justification to the fact that some Palean baskets had ever existed in the Lithos and been brough by Palean.


Moreover, all the analyses above are based on the evidence of historical records and analogical reasoning, through which, however, we cannot exactly definite the time of the basket which had been manufactured. If we prefer to find a precise answer to the question that who is the first to make the basket, we shall take advantage of the high technology to define the accurate time of the basket in Palea and the basket in Lithos respectively and the history may be possible to be changed.


In retrospect, the author’s argument is lack of enough consideration of the object situation and the evidence is relatively partial; his conclusion, however, may be true after the definite time of the basket comes out, but the reasoning progress of the argument need to be improved to be more persuadable.

ppguo

这篇写的挺好的。

题目里such a "alean" basket in Lithos， “Palean" 是加引号的，就是说其实在Lithos发现的篮子是不是跟Palean的一样，还是个问题。还有一点是说只有在Lithos发现一个篮子，如果Lithos 本地产这种篮子，应该不止一个。

ppguo

新手也请拍，很有意思的。

lukeyu

谢谢ppguo提出的argument的破绽，很有说服力～～

ppguo

甭客气，呵呵。