Argument 1 求拍！狠拍！

peepul

Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Pa
and therefore were believed to have been unique to the Pan people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "an" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Pa. The Brim River is very deep and broad (3), and so the ancient Pans could only have crossed it by boat (1), but there is no evidence that the Pans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Pan people disappeared. Moreover, Pans would have had no need to cross the river(5)—the woods around Pa are full of nuts, berries, and small game(4). It follows that the so-called Pan baskets were not unique to Pa
一种具有独特花纹的编制篮子以前只在史前村庄P发现，从而被人认为是P村人独有的。然而最近，考古学家在L发现了一只这种篮子，该村与P相隔一条名为B的河流，B的水很深，河面很宽，古代P的人只有坐船才能穿过它，但尚无证据表明P村人有过船只，而且，可以载人的船直到P的人们消失几千年以后才开始出现。并且，P的人们没有过河的必要：因为P附近的树林子里有着丰富的坚果、草莓和一些其他的猎物。这表明所谓的P的篮子并非P村人所独有。

提纲 1. 外推错误：古时候的情况和现在未必一样

2. 必要条件：食物并非渡河的唯一理由；船只并非渡河的唯一方式

Based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws the conclusion that the so-called P baskets with distinctive pattern, which are found in P and L, could be made by non-P cultures. The author points out evidence that archaeologists discovered such a "" basket in L, an ancient village across the Brim River
from P. In addition, the arguer indicates that, without boats, ancient people could not cross the river and that no evidence have been found to support the existence in ancient P. At first glance, the argument appears to be convincing, however, a profound reflection reveals that, it omits several reasons which should be addressed to substantiate the argument. In my point of view, the argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.
Firstly, the arguer claims that P and L are isolated, because without boats, they could not cross the deep and wide river. As evidence, the arguer also points out that food are plentiful for P, for whom there was no need to cross the river. The author assumes without justification that geographic and natural conditions have remained the same in prehistoric village and today. The assumption is unwarranted because things rarely remain unchanged over extended periods of time. It is highly possible that the prehistoric village was entirely different from what the archaeologists have observed today. For example, the river may not be that width and length in ancient P, and people crossed it with no effort. Also, the food resource may not be so sufficient for P at that time. Any of these scenarios will undermine the claim that P needn’t and couldn’t cross the river.

Secondly, even assuming that all the aforementioned scenarios have remained unchanged over time, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the assumptions that by no means other than boats could the villagers cross the river, and that no motivations other than food triggered the culture communication. However, this might not be the case. Reasons other than food shortage might also promote the culture communication. For example, people in P might exchange food for other products, such as cloth, a kind of particular expertise and so forth, with L and the other villages nearby. Also, boats may not be the only media of culture communication. For example, ropes and bridges over the river might exist at that time. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the two villages could never communicate without motivation of food shortage and means of transportation.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that the basket are not unique to P, because the evidences cited do not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To make the argument more persuasive, the author would have to explore and provide more information about geographic situation and natural resources at that time rather than today. The arguer would also have to demonstrate that boat was the only means for communication at that time. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

普渡哥

作者理由找的很好。

The arguer would also have to demonstrate that boat was the only means for communication at that time.

means应该是mean.

peepul

不是吧 作为工具 方法 途径讲的时候 是means 啊!