[a习作temp] Argument 1 words 627 time 80min [复制链接]

861101sly
UID: 3032366

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 15
寄托币: 63
注册时间: 2011-3-16
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-3-28 22:26:34 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument 1 words 627 time 80min

In this argument, the author concludes that the Palean baskets werenot uniquely Palean.To support this argument, the arguer cites the followingfacts: (1) the Brim River is very deep and broad; (2) the ancient Paleans couldhave crossed it only by boat; (3) no Palean boats have been found. At the firstglance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, however,further reflection reveals that it omits some important concerns that should beaddressed to substantiate the argument.
Firstly, the author commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”.The fact that the Brim River is very deep and broad now doesn’t mean that itwas the same many years ago. The author assumes without justification that the backgroundconditions have remained the same at different times. However, it is not clearin this argument whether the current conditions about the Brim River many yearsago was the same it is as now. Perhaps the river was desiccated many years agoor there were no rivers at all. Without a survey the author can’t convince methat the river is deep and broad. Thus it’s impossible to conclude that theancient Paleans could have crossed it by boat.
Secondly, even if the Brim River is very deep and broad, the authorcommits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The line of the reasoning isthat because the Brim River is very deep and broad, the ancient Paleans couldhave crossed it only by boat. The author uses the positive correlation between statementthat the Brim River is very deep and broad and statement that the ancientPaleans could have crossed it only by boat. However, this is fallaciousreasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered andruled out. For example, perhaps the ancient Paleans could use bamboo rafts tocross the river. Perhaps the ancient Paleans could swim to Lithos.
Thirdly, even assuming that the Brim River is very deep and broadand the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, the author stillmade an unwarranted statement. The author provides no evidence that no Paleanboats have been found, so this is entirely unconvincing. Perhaps there areboats but the investigators did not find them. Also perhaps the sample area of thesurvey the investigators selected is too small or not representative of thewhole Palea. Perhaps the boats have become wreckages. There may be boats inother places within Palea. Without ruling out all such possibilities, it’sunfair to conclude that there are no boats in Palea.
Finally, even if there are no boats in Palea, the author still can’treach to the conclusion that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Theauthor falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that the Paleam baskets canonly be transported by the Plaleans to Lithos by boat. However, no evidence isstated in the argument to support this assumption. In fact, this is notnecessarily the case. For example, it’s more likely that Lithos peopletransported to the Palea and came back with the Palean baskets. Also perhaps astrong wind blew the Palean baskets to the Brim River and the baskets floatedto Lithos. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibilities.
Tomake a long story short, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful assumptionthat render it unconving as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the authormust provide clear evidence-perhaps by a way of local survey or study that the BrimRiver was very deep and broad many years ago and there were no bamboo raftswhich can be alternatives of boats to get the other side of the river , andthat no boats definitely existed in the Palea, and that no boats existed in Lithoseither.