[a习作temp] 新G argument1，求狠拍！！ [复制链接]

blair104
UID: 3118254

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 196
注册时间: 2011-6-30
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-8-19 09:14:35 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 blair104 于 2011-8-19 09:15 编辑

第一次写作文，求狠拍！！！没有按照规定时间写，写了40多分钟，惭愧！！！
   Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique in Palean. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points evidence that the Palean baskets were also found in Lithos. In addition, he indicates that Brim River is deep and broad people of Palean can not cross it. Furthermore, he cites the result of survey that no Palean boats have been found in support of this recommendation. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some essential concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument. In my point of view, the argument suffers from three logical flaws.
      The author claims that without boats the Paleans can not cross the Brim River, because it is deep and broad. The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different time. The assumption is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over extended periods of time. There are likely all kinds of difference between the ancient river and nowadays river. For example, the Brim River in the ancient time maybe shallow and narrow; however, the same river at present is deep and broad. As we all know that the flow can change the river. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the Paleans can not cross the river.
      Even assuming that the river never changed over long-term history, the author falsely presume that no Palean boats have been found must be attribute to Paleans have no boats in the ancient time. However, it is entirely possible that boats relics are buried under the earth just have not been found yet. Perhaps the boats are not looks as same as today’s boats the historians did not recognize it, or perhaps the boat had been burned already. Without considering these possibilities, it is unwarranted to claim that there are no boats in Palean.
   Ultimately, the author’s recommendation depends on the assumption that no factors other than boats can bring the baskets to the Lithos. Notwithstanding, common sense informs me that this assumption is untenable. To be specific, the baskets could also float on the river and arrive in the Lithos. Furthermore, maybe the ancient Lithos come to Palean to buy the baskets by themselves in the Lithos’ boats. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the author can not justifiably conclude that only Palean boat can take the baskets to the Lithos.
   To sum up, this arguer fails to authenticate its claim that the baskets are not unique in Palean, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the arguments more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to the consideration of the river in different time. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that boat is the only way for baskets arriving in Lithos. Therefore, if arguments had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

argument1