求拍argument1啊，关于wood basket的，特别特别感谢

山依格紫

. 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.
。
Citing that the Brim River is very deep and broad, supposing that the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, then synthesizing the two hypothesizes and another invalid evidence that no Palean boats have been found, the speaker accordingly concludes that the so-called Palean baskets in Lithos were not uniquely Palean. However, I find this argument is logically flawed, for several reasons.


Initially, the author's conclusion irrationally presumes from the fact that the Brim River is very deep and broad in the recent days. Absent proof to support this conclusion. It is entirely possible that the river was shallow and narrow enough to walk across or even nonexistent, then the Palean people could bring the basket to Lithos and even perhaps the basket was designed not by the Palean but the Lithos residents. To illustrate this possibility, let us take a look at the following appropriate example: the South River, a deep and broad river in Henan Province of China was just a little creek two thousand years ago. Therefore, without ruling out this possibility, the speaker cannot justifiably depend on the present state of the Brim River to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Substantially, even assuming that the Brim river was deep and broad, the editorial provides no clear evidence to justify the assumption that the ancient Palean could have cross it by boat. It is also possible that the ancient people had skillful swimming capabilities to go across the broad river. According to the history materials, our forefathers could swim before thirty or forty hundred years ago. In addition, the Palean people could cross the river by wood broad or raft. Thus, without firmer evidence that Paleans could cross the river only by boat, the conclusion is still unpersuasive.

Finally, even if the foregoing possibilities are excluded, the speaker cannot reasonably draw the conclusion relying on the fact that no Palean boats have been found either. Though no Palean boats have been found in the present days, we cannot assure the boats' nonexistence. It is just as possible that the boats' remains are too rare to be found or  archaeologists do not have the sufficient mature technology to detect these boats' fragments, in all likelihood, the boats' remains would be found years later with the surging boom of advanced technology. In addition, the baskets could drift across the river or be brought to Lithos by posterity, either. However, the speaker overlooks these possibilities thus the conclusion is ill-conceived.



In sum, the argument is not grounded on sound reasoning and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the speaker must provide clear and persuasive evidence that the ancient people had no other ways to cross the river except by boat and the boats do not exist ,and must show that baskets had no access to float across the river and were not brought to the other side by Palean offspring.

山依格紫

非常非常感谢呀 这是自己的第一篇习作，望大师指导~~

lukebrehm

Very Good!

山依格紫

thanks, luke~~could u help me to mark this article?  Thank you very much~~

竹林中人

Citing that the Brim River is very deep and broad, supposing that the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, then synthesizing the two hypothesizes and another invalid evidence that no Palean boats have been found, the speaker accordingly concludes that the so-called Palean baskets in Lithos were not uniquely Palean.这个么长的一个句子，不要写的好，而且后面的一句有那么短，这样整个第一段显得很不匀称，头重脚轻。
Absent proof to support this conclusion.？
总的来说，这篇文章的思路很清晰，语言需要更凝练地道

lukebrehm

I'll try.

山依格紫

非常感谢喽~

lukebrehm

Maybe something like this:

Supposing that the ancient Paleans could only have crossed the Brim river by boat, then synthesizing the two hypothesizes and the invalid evidence that no Palean boats have been found. The writer accordingly concludes that the so-called Palean baskets in Lithos were not uniquely Palean. However, I find this argument is logically flawed, for several reasons.

One, the author's conclusion irrationally assumes from the fact that the Brim River is very deep and broad now, that the river was very deep and broad then. However, the Brim could have been shallow and narrow enough to walk across or perhaps nonexistent during that period. On this invalid evidence the author assumes the Palean people could not have brought the baskets to Lithos and assumes that perhaps the baskets were designed not by the Palean but the residents of Lithos. To illustrate this possibility, let us take a look at the following appropriate example: The South River, a deep and broad river in Henan Province of China was just a little creek two thousand years ago. Therefore, without ruling out this possibility, the writer cannot justifiably depend on the present state of the Brim River to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Two, even assuming that the Brim river was deep and broad, the author provides no clear evidence to justify the assumption that the ancient Palean could not have crossed it by boat. It is also possible that the ancient people had skillful swimming capabilities to get across the broad river. According to the history materials, our forefathers could swim before thirty or forty hundred years ago. In addition, the Palean people could cross the river by wood or raft. In addition, the baskets could drift across the river or be brought to Lithos by posterity. Thus, even with firmer evidence that the Paleans could cross the river only by boat, the conclusion is still unpersuasive.

And finally, even if the previous possibilities were excluded, the writer cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that no Palean boats have been found. Though no Palean boats have been found in present days, we cannot be sure of the boats' nonexistence. It is just as possible that the boats' remains are too rare to be found or  archaeologists do not have the sufficient technology to detect the fragments, in all likelihood, the boats' remains would be found years later with the surging boom of advanced technology. However, the speaker overlooks these possibilities thus the conclusion is ill-conceived.

Summed up, the argument is not grounded on sound reasoning and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the writer must provide clear and persuasive evidence that the ancient people had no other ways to cross the river except by boat. That the boats did not exist, in addition must prove that the baskets had no access to float across the river and were not brought to the other side by Palean offspring.

lukebrehm

I'm sure i have a lot of mistakes too.

ppguo

wonderful Job!