Argument33 [Smile－A组]第三次作业

geniuschenUID: 2131745

TOPIC: ARGUMENT33 - The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."

Outline:
1.The arguer fails to convince us that only those who migrated to a new place after childhood have high levels of a certain metallic element.
2.The mere fact that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element is also little indication that all the pots were spread by migration.
3.The arguer simply overlooks some other ways in spreading the pots.


In this argument, the arguer claims that the distinctive shaped ceramic pots were spread by migration rather than trade. In order to support the argument, the arguer cited an analysis of the bones that there is a link between high levels of a certain metallic element and people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Besides, the arguer also suggested the fact that many bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element.However, I think this argument has some logical flaws in several aspects.

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince us that only those who migrated to a new place after childhood have high levels of a certain metallic element. In fact, no detailed information is provided in this argument about the reason why high levels of such metallic element exists in the human body.Thus, it is entirely possible that other people, rather than those who migrated to a new place after childhood, would also have plenty of such metallic elements in their bodies, due to the food they eat or their eating habits. Without ruling out the possibilities I listed above, the analysis does not necessarily indicate that those bones with high levels of the metallic element came from the people who migrated to a new place after childhood.

Secondly, the mere fact that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element is also little indication that all the pots were spread by migration.Actually, the vague evidence, such as “many” and "a few” sites, does not necessarily mean that all the bones found in every site were from the people who migrated to a new place after the childhood. In other words, perhaps the pots in some sites were spread by some other people, rather than those who have high levels of a certain metallic element in their bodies. Hence, it is a little hasty for the arguer to draw the conclusion that the pots were spread by those people who migrated to a new place after the childhood.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer simply overlooks some other ways in spreading the pots. It is entirely possible that just those who migrated to a new place after their childhood spread these pots through other methods other than migration. For instance, perhaps these people ever wanted to trade these pots with people lived in other places rather than the place they migrated to after their childhood.Unfortunately, these people died in the sites where those bones were found today because of some unpredicted reasons such as lacking of water or the storm. Without ruling out similar scenarios I requested above, the conclusion that all pots were spread by migration is open to doubt.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the arguer should provide more credible evidence about the bones found near the pots as well as the relationship between the levels of the metallic element and the people. What is more, the arguer should also rule out other possible methods in spreading the pots.

这篇文章写的很没感觉 狠拍

hes2000abcUID: 2154084

In this argument, the arguer claims that the distinctively shaped ceramic pots were spread by migration rather than trade. In order to support the argument, the arguer cited an analysis of the bones that there is a link between high levels of a certain metallic element and people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Besides, the arguer also suggested the fact that many bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. However, I think this argument has some logical flaws in several aspects.

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince us that only those who migrated to a new place after childhood have high levels of a certain metallic element. In fact, no detailed information is provided in this argument about the reason why high levels of such metallic element exists in the human body. Thus, it is entirely possible that other people, rather than those who migrated to a new place after childhood, would also have plenty of such metallic elements in their bodies, due to the food they eat or their eating(cultural dietary )habits(or genetic predisposition). Without ruling out the possibilities I listed above, the analysis does not necessarily indicate that those bones with high levels of the metallic element came from the people who migrated to a new place after childhood.

Secondly, the mere fact that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element is also little indication that all the pots were spread by migration. Actually, the vague evidence, such as “many” and "a few” sites, does not necessarily mean that all the bones found in every site were from the people who migrated to a new place after the childhood. In other words, perhaps the pots in some sites were spread by some other people, rather than those who have high levels of a certain metallic element in their bodies. Hence, it is a little hasty for the arguer to draw the conclusion that the pots were spread by those people who migrated to a new place after the childhood.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer simply overlooks some other ways in spreading the pots. It is entirely possible that just those who migrated to a new place after their childhood spread these pots through other methods other than migration.(这句话矛盾) For instance, perhaps these people ever wanted to trade these pots with people lived in other places rather than the place they migrated to after their childhood. Unfortunately, these people died in the sites where those bones were found today because of some unpredicted reasons such as lacking of water or the storm. Without ruling out similar scenarios I requested above, the conclusion that all pots were spread by migration is open to doubt.(可以是技术转移;或者一部分贸易,一部分迁徙)
In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the arguer should provide more credible evidence about the bones found near the pots as well as the relationship between the levels of the metallic element and the people. What is more, the arguer should also rule out other possible methods in spreading the pots.

写的不错,值得学习,句子应用和表达很到位.

[ 本帖最后由 hes2000abc 于 2006-7-28 23:12 编辑 ]

xinxinwUID: 2144273

In this argument, the arguer claims that the distinctive shaped ceramic pots were spread by migration rather than trade. In order to support the argument, the arguer cited an analysis of the bones that there is a link between high levels of a certain metallic element and people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Besides, the arguer also suggested the fact that many bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element.However, I think this argument has some logical flaws in several aspects.

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince us that only those who migrated to a new place after childhood have high levels of a certain metallic element. In fact, no detailed information is provided in this argument about the reason why high levels of such metallic element exists in the human body.Thus, it is entirely possible that other people, rather than those who migrated to a new place after childhood, would also have plenty of such metallic elements in their bodies, due to the food they eat or their eating habits. Without ruling out the possibilities I listed above, the analysis does not necessarily indicate that those bones with high levels of the metallic element came from the people who migrated to a new place after childhood.

Secondly, the mere fact that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element is also little indication that all the pots were spread by migration.Actually, the vague evidence, such as “many” and "a few” sites, does not necessarily mean that all the bones found in every site were from the people who migrated to a new place after the childhood. In other words, perhaps the pots in some sites were spread by some other people, rather than those who have high levels of a certain metallic element in their bodies. Hence, it is a little hasty for the arguer to draw the conclusion that the pots were spread by those people who migrated to a new place after the childhood.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer simply overlooks some other ways in spreading the pots. It is entirely possible that just those who migrated to a new place after their childhood spread these pots through other methods other than migration. For instance, perhaps these people ever wanted to trade these pots with people lived in other places rather than the place they migrated to after their childhood.Unfortunately, these people died in the sites where those bones were found today because of some unpredicted reasons such as lacking of water or the storm. Without ruling out similar scenarios I requested above, the conclusion that all pots were spread by migration is open to doubt.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the arguer should provide more credible evidence about the bones found near the pots as well as the relationship between the levels of the metallic element and the people. What is more, the arguer should also rule out other possible methods in spreading the pots.

无话可说了