求点评AW，越狠越好

Alice-cigarUID：3799101

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 "Palean" 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.


The argument concludes that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean by putting forward several assumptions to strength its argument. To begin with, it gives a recent finding by the archeologists, who said that the Palean baskets were found in the Lithos, not only in the original place, where people used to refer it to the only Palean-basket-makers. Secondly, it offers a geographic opinion that there were a deep board river called Brim River between two villages, which means the only transportation must be boats. However, no Palean boats have been found, which means Palean baskets cannot be transported from Palea to Lithos. Since the communication did not exist, it can bring out the assumption that the so-called Palean baskets are made by people in Lithos all by themselves. This speculation frankly supports the argument’s recommendation. However, this argument is logically flawed in several respects.
Firstly, the assumption is weak, for the reason that it is built up on an unreliable resource. These two villages are both prehistoric, which means no one can claim for sure that there are no gigantic geographical changes in their realm. There is a possibility that the Brim River did not exist at all between these two villages, which makes the assumption nonsense. For another, these archeologists just provide people with the fact that the Palean basket appeared in the Lithos, which cannot support the assumption in the argument.
Secondly, there is an oversimplification in the argument that it deems that the only transportation between these two villages is boats. Though the river is deep and board, there are several possible ways for people to contact with each other, to illustrate, swimming across the river, letting the baskets flow or building up a bridge. Going through the river by boats is one of these alternative choices, not the only one. Another oversimplification in the argument is that it concludes the assumption that boats do not exist from the finding: no Palean boats have been found, which is ridiculous. As we can see from the timeline, these villages were ancient, which means if the Palean boats would exist, they must be corrupted or destroyed. There is another explanation for why people cannot find the Palean boats is that archaeologists have not closed the discovery, it is too early to come to the final consequence. This argument just comes up with the assumption for granted and overlooks several parallel possibilities.
In sum, the argument seems logical, but is based on wishful thinking and unsounded speculation. The argument builds up the whole assumption without casual relations, which clearly weaken the argument. To strength it, the authors should take several alternative explanations into consideration and provides details before jumping to the conclusion that the Palean boats were not unique in Palea.