[a习作temp] argument33 第一次成功限时，希望大家多多指教！ [复制链接]

greenfruit
UID: 2112472

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 65
注册时间: 2005-6-30
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-25 23:44:20 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

33 “The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pops 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.”In this argument, the author concludes that the ceramic pops discovered at various prehistoric sites are spread by migration of makers rather than by trade. The conclusion is based on a premise indicating a correlation between high level of certain metallic element in human bones and people who migrated to a new place after childhood, and also base on an analysis showing such high level of metallic elements on many bones. However, the argument is not convincing for several reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1　前提有问题：发现的金属元素高含量一定表示这些人是同一个地方出来的？其它地方的金属含量？
2 多少骨头显示这种情况？其它骨头？
3 一定是移民，因为战争？远行？贸易？两者皆有？
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin with, whether the premise makes sense is open to doubt. Admittedly high level of certain metallic elements in one’s bones will remain after he migrates to other places after childhood, thus people from one place may have certain characteristics no matter where they will move to. However, it could not be deduced conversely that bones with such traits are certainly from the same place, unless it could be proven that there is only one place where food are abundant in such high level of metallic element. Yet, such assurance is not mentioned, which render the assumption unconvincing.

In the second place, the analysis has found that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites have such trait, yet the result is too vague to be informative. The words “many” and “a few” lack clear definition, therefore providing little useful information for the conclusion. If “many” means 10% of all the discovered bones at one sites, or if “a few” means 20% of all the discovered sites, obviously it’s too slight a number to conclude about the reason for spread of all the pots.

Finally, the author presents a false dilemma by limiting the true reason between only migration and trade, overlooking other possible causes. Even if the analysis of bones found near sites of pots does show apparent high-level of a certain metallic element, and even if the premise about the correlation is correct, other possible reasons other than migration could explain such phenomenon. For instance, makers of pots may suffered from war or other turbulent situations and moved his home more than once, or perhaps makers may traveled to many a places and spread his work everywhere. And also possible is that the pots are spread by the combination of migration and trade.

To sum up, at first glance the argument settles a debate and reaches a certain conclusion with sufficient support. Yet the assumption it is based on is open to doubt while the analysis that justify it is too imprecise to lend some support. The author needs more evidences to support the premise and detailed information about the analysis in order to reach a certain result.