37 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 unique to 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 only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.
The author concludes that the woven baskets which were believed to be unique to the Palean people are not unique to them. To strengthen the conclusion, the author cites evidence that these baskets were also found in Lithos, and because there is a deep and broad river between the two areas, it is impossible for Palean people to go to Lithos only if by boat. In addition, the author claims that there is no boat at that time, and there was no need for Palean people go to Lithos. However, the argument suffers from several logical fallacies.
To begin with, the evidence that the river between the two areas is very deep and broad cannot support the claim that Paleans could only cross it by boat. It is possible that there were some bridges over the river, so people could go to both areas by these bridges. Or perhaps, there are other ways except the water way that people could go to Lithos. If so, then the evidence could not support the conclusion that Paleans could only through boat go to Lithos sufficiently.
Secondly, the evidence that there were no large boat capable of carrying groups of people and cargo developed at that time is also unnecessary to support the assumption that Paleans cannot go to Lithos. Maybe at that time, people had capacity to make small tools helping them cross the river, such as rafts. Without ruling out all these possibilities, we cannot concede the author's assumption very much.
Finally, the author’s assumption that Paleans had no need to cross the river is also highly suspect. There are many reasons people need to cross the river, such as they could do business with Lithos people, they could marry with Lithos people and additionally, maybe Lithos had many cherish resources that Palean did not have. All of these reasons will be sufficient for Paleans crossed the river. Therefore, the guarantee the author makes is unnecessarily bolster the conclusion that there were no need for Paleans across the river.
In sum, the argument is not well reasonable. To make the conclusion more acceptable, the author should find evidence to demonstrate that there is no other ways except by boat could Paleans cross the river. In addition, the author should render us believe that it is no need for them going to Lithos. If the author could not eliminate all these possibilities, the conclusion is highly unfounded.
[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-18 at 17:45 ]作者: dieforbeauty_97 时间: 2005-7-18 11:59:07 标题: 限时写的很厉害啊
新手，水平有限，请见谅
The author concludes that the woven baskets which were believed to be unique to the Palean people are not unique to them. To strengthen the conclusion, the author cites evidence that these baskets were also found in Lithos, and because there is a deep and broad river between the two areas, it is impossible for Palean people to go to Lithos only if by boat. In addition, the author claims that there is no boat at that time, and there was no need for Palean people go to Lithos. However, the argument suffers from several logical fallacies.
To begin with, the evidence that the river between the two areas is very deep and broad cannot support the claim that Paleans could only cross it by boat. It is possible that there were some bridges over the river, so people could go to both areas by these bridges. Or perhaps, there are other ways except the water way that people could go to Lithos. If so, then the evidence could not support the conclusion that Paleans could only through boat go to Lithos sufficiently.（我觉得这句有点多余了，因为只有一句分析啊）
Secondly, the evidence that there were no large boat capable of carrying groups of people and cargo developed at that time is also unnecessary to support the assumption that Paleans cannot go to Lithos. Maybe at that time, people had capacity to make small tools helping them cross the river, such as rafts. Without ruling out all these possibilities, we cannot concede the author's assumption very much.
Finally, the author’s assumption that Paleans had no need to cross the river is also highly suspect（suspected）. There are many reasons people need to cross the river, such as they could do business with Lithos people, they could marry with Lithos people and additionally, maybe Lithos had many cherish resources that Palean did not have. All of these reasons will be sufficient for Paleans crossed the river. Therefore, the guarantee the author makes is unnecessarily bolster the conclusion that there were no need for Paleans across the river.
In sum, the argument is not well reasonable. To make the conclusion more acceptable, the author should find evidence to demonstrate that there is no other ways except by boat could Paleans cross the river. In addition, the author should render us believe that it is (是否there is) no need for them going to Lithos. If the author could not eliminate all these possibilities, the conclusion is highly unfounded.作者: dieforbeauty_97 时间: 2005-7-18 12:05:14 标题: 请赐教,写了很长时间
The author concludes that the woven baskets which were believed to be unique to the Palean people are not unique to them. To strengthen（这里用approve比较好吧） the conclusion, the author cites evidence复数？ that these baskets were also found in Lithos, and because there is a deep and broad river between the two areas, it is impossible for Palean people to go to Lithos only if by boat. In addition, the author claims that there is no boat at that time, and there was no need for Palean people go to Lithos. However, the argument suffers from several logical fallacies.
To begin with, the evidence that the river between the two areas is very deep and broad cannot support the claim that Paleans could only cross it by boat. It is possible that there were some bridges over the river, so people could go to both areas by these bridges. Or perhaps, there are other ways except the water way that people could go to Lithos. If so, then the evidence could not support the conclusion that Paleans could only through boat go to Lithos sufficiently.
Secondly, the evidence that there were no large boat复数 capable of carrying groups of people and cargo developed at that time is also unnecessary to support the assumption that Paleans cannot go to Lithos. Maybe at that time, people had capacity to make small tools （rafts不算小工具吧？） helping them cross the river, such as rafts. Without ruling out all these possibilities, we cannot concede the author's assumption very much.
Finally, the author’s assumption that Paleans had no need to cross the river is also highly suspect被动语态. There are many reasons people need to cross the river, such as they could do business with Lithos people, they could marry with Lithos people and additionally, maybe Lithos had many cherish resources that Palean did not have. All of these reasons will be sufficient for Paleans to crossed the river. Therefore, the guarantee the author makes is unnecessarily bolster the conclusion that there were no need for Paleans across the river.
In sum, the argument is not well reasonable. To make the conclusion more acceptable, the author should find evidence to demonstrate that there is no other ways except by boat could Paleans cross the river. In addition, the author should render us believe that it is no need for them going to Lithos我觉得没有必要做一件事不等于没有做. If the author could not eliminate all these possibilities, the conclusion is highly unfounded.