In this argument, the arguer claims that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. To support the conclusion, the arguer uses the following evidence; first, the archaeologists were discover such a Palean basket in Lithos these days. second, the arguer said that the Brim River is too deep to cross and no Palean boots have been found. Third, the baskets were made only by Palean people but they were been found in Lithos. Unfortunately, the arguer suffers from several critical fallacies and has to address more crucial questions before she can legitimately conclude that the Palean basket were not belong to Palean.
First, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if there did not find Palean boats in the Brim River, which connect the Lithos village and Palean village, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that the boats did not exist before. It is very likely that hundreds years ago, there were several boats across the Brim River to transmit baskets from Palean village to Lithos village, as time goes by, the boats which made from wood were resolved to the nature so that there did not have any trail for us to discover. Furthermore the arguer ignores the possibility that we did not found boats in the Brim river because of our technology is not advanced enough, unless the arguer also takes this factor into consideration, the comparison is unconvincing. Therefore, even though no boats have been founded in the Brim River, there is no guarantee that Palean village did not have boats.
Second, the arguer claims that the Brim River is very deep and broad so the ancient Paleans could only have been carries by boat. But the problem is that the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. The arguer suppose that the Brim River did not change its depth over the years. But it is impossible that there did not have geological activities in these years. It is very likely that Palean villages situated in some areas which may came up different changes and hence all the boats in the Brim River were disappeared. The arguer overlooks the possibility that Paleans activities such as cultivating, water drilling or constructing made the Brim River become deeper over the years, perhaps the Brim River may be a brook hundred years ago, thus people in Palean were unnecessary to across the river only by boat. In short, without evidence that all other conditions did not affect the Brim River, the arguer’s claim that people in Palean must crossed the river only by boat is dubious at best.
In addition, even if the Palean baskets were made in Palean but have been founded in Lithos, granted that there did not have boats been founded in Palean is true, there is no guarantee that no boats in Lithos village. The arguer fails to take into account the possibility that people in Lithos could transmit baskets which made by Palean people across the Brim River by their boats. It is entirely that a commercial intercourse may existed between Palean and Lithos, perhaps people in Lithos might use abundant baskets which made from Palean people. The arguer does no provide any information concerning the impossibility of Lithos`s boats.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the percentage of the affected families and their geographical distribution. （597）