球拍球拍 Argument64 K岛雕塑那题

mikezidane

Collectorsprize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Islandbut have long wondered how Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies withsuch realistic precision. Since archaeologists have recently discovered moldsof human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalineseartists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, tocreate these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statueswere abstract and entirely different in style: molds could be used only forlife-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting toolshave been found. In light of this discovery, collectors predict that thelife-size sculptures will decrease in value while the miniatures increase invalue.
1mold一定用作雕塑吗
2小雕塑就不用mold吗
3不用mold就价值高吗

The argument is well presented yetfar-fetched. It lays a claim that the miniatures are more valuable than thelife-size ones. Nevertheless, the argument is de facto unreasonable due toseveral flaws such as whether the molds are used to make sculptures, whetherthe scant tool indicates the smaller sculptures are made by them, and the valueof these two kinds of art works respectively. These logical fallacies can bediagnosed after a close scrutiny, albeit they may appear plausible at a cursoryglance.


To begin with, a threshold problem in theargument that the author ought to answer the question that does the discoveryof molds of bodies necessarily indicates the ways people made sculptures. It istotally possible that craftsmen made the molds for other use rather than makingthose sculptures. Let's say the painters made these molds of human for researchand contributed  to their own domainrather sculptures. Or even the molds discovered are not of the same age of thesculptures. Without provide enough evidence, the author's argument is dubiousat best.

In spite of the use of molds, the statementmaintains ill-conceived. The author attributes to the small sculptures are freefrom using the molds of human. however，artists might be clever enough to make children's molds for thatuse. The lack of discovery of those smaller molds does not necessarily naysaysthe possibility it should deserve. Moreover, the scant number of discoveredtool might leads to another utterly different conclusion that both of the kindsof sculptures are make by molds of people. Failure of author to explain awayother likelihoods compromises the credence of conclusion that the miniature sculpturesare made by wools.

Even assuming that the life-size sculptureare made with molds any their smaller counterparts are not, a significant flawin the statement is that the author's opinion about the identical kinds ofthese works should be questioned. The author happens to omit the reasons whythe non-mold-made sculptures are relatively high in value. Perhaps the largersculptures are more vivid and true-to-life likeness. The author arbitrarily assertsthe value of a unexplained art work is definitely not satisfying. So adoptingauthor's proposal will certain undermine, rather than benefit the overallstatement.

In retrospect, it seems precipitous for theauthor to jump into the conclusion based on a series of problematic premises.To dismiss the specter of implausible in the argument, the author ought toprovide cogent evidence such as the recently discovered molds are made to do sculptures, the miniatures arenot made with molds, and the reason for the smaller sculptures are of greatervalue. After all, feckless attempts with a fallible method can be nothing but afool's errand. Thus only by grasping the gist of argument can the author deducea convincible conclusion.

Thanks for reading

竹林中人

写的有进步了，加油