处女作求指点，谢谢！【Argument 1】

lbjandzyt

Argument 1
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern havepreviously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric villageof Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Paleanpeople. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "alean"basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The BrimRiver is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed itonly by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that theso-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. [Write a response in whichyou discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument andexplain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.


 Inthis argument, the speaker says that the so-called Palean baskets were notuniquely Palean. To support his or her conclusion, the speaker provides the evidencethat the Brim River between Palea and Lithos is deep and broad and assumes thatthe ancient Paleans could have crossed the river only by the boats, which havenot been found yet. However, in my view, this argument above contains severallogical flaws, which render it unacceptable. The reasons are stated as follows.

First of all, the evidence provided by the speaker--the Brim River isbroad and deep, is too vague to validate the assumption that the ancientPaleans passed the river only by boat. Perhaps, at that time, the river wasnarrow and shallow, very easy to cross. Or perhaps, it is entirely possible thatthe so-called Brim River didn’t even exist. It was just land or ditch betweenthe two villages. Therefore, the ancient people maybe didn't need boats to transportthe baskets and perhaps that's why no Palean boats haven been found.

Secondly, even if the river was difficult to cross at that time, thespeaker unfairly assumes the baskets can only be taken by boat. He or shefailed to rule out other possible conditions. May not Palean people put thebaskets on the river, let it drift to the other side? Or it might be a flood tobring the baskets to Lithos. So we need more information about the materialsand textures of this basket to justify how can these possibilities happen.

Thirdly, even if the speaker can substantiate the foregoing assumption, heor she overlooks some other possibilities which are also very important. Thoughthe archaeologists didn't find the boats in Palea, it is entirely possible thatit was Lithos people crossing the river and taking the baskets back. For thatmatter, the archaeologists might find boats on the other side -- Lithos.Besides, there might be some trade roads like "the silk road", whichbrought the baskets to Lithos by trading. In short, without ruling out these possibilitiesabove, the speaker can’t convince me that the baskets are not uniquely Palean.

  Insum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. The speaker fails toestablish a casual relationship between the conclusion -- Palean baskets arenot uniquely Palean and the evidences he or she provided. To strengthen theargument, the speaker should substantiate that the there actually was a broadand deep river between the two villages, while demonstrating that it must bePaleans making the boats to cross the river. Besides, he or she would have to providemore information about the materials of the baskets, or it would beunconvincing.

普渡哥

First of all, the evidence provided by the speaker--the Brim River isbroad and deep, is too vague to validate the assumption that the ancientPaleans passed the river only by boat. Perhaps, at that time, the river wasnarrow and shallow, very easy to cross. Or perhaps, it is entirely possible thatthe so-called Brim River didn’t even exist. It was just land or ditch betweenthe two villages. Therefore, the ancient people maybe didn't need boats to transportthe baskets and perhaps that's why no Palean boats haven been found.

句式需要改改，是中文逻辑，外国人可能读不懂你的逻辑性。

lbjandzyt

谢谢，靠多读多写了