Argument37 [ineffable]小组第二次作业，请组员跟帖

xiaxiaobing919UID: 2606450

37Woven 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 argument concludes that the woven baskets are not unique to Palea. This conclusion is based on the premises that recently a "Palean" basket is found nearby ancient village across the Brim River from Palea, that the river is so broad that the Palean people make access to across it, and that Palea people have no need to cross the river because its adequate food supply. This argument is not logically persuasive, however, because it relies on numerous shaky assumptions for which no evidence has been given.

To begin with, the evidence that a " Palean" basket in Lithos, which is cited by the author, is not sufficient to demonstrate the " Palean" basket is made by the people in Lithos. If the Lithos people are capable of making the basket, we can expect to find a myriad of " Palean" basket, rather than only one piece of that. However, the author provides no evidence that other "Palean" basket has ever been found in Lithos. Thus, we cannot be convinced that the appeared " palean" basket is made by the people in Lithos.

In addition, the author fails to consider other possibilities of the transmitting of the " Palean" basket. Even though, as Brim River cannot be crossed by the Palean people, the "Palean" baset can be transmit through other approaches. For example, they can flow in the river so as to arrive at the nearby village, rather than carried by human directly. If so, there are a great possibility the " Palean" basket appeared in Lithos is from that method.

Furthermore, the difference of the Brim River from the past to now has not been taken into consideration. Although the Brim River is so broad that the people can only cross it by boat, which never being invented before the disappearance of Palean people, however, it would be possible that the river is not so broad in ancient times, or there are no rivers at all. Thus, the people in the two villages can easily transferred from one place to another. Thus, it is reasonable to find the " Palean " basket in Lithos.

Finally, even though the food supplies are adequate in Palean, as the author asserts, however, there may be other reasons for them to communicate with each other. Because each village may have their own expertise, the exchange of goods will made both of the village become more and more prosperous. Therefore, the "palean" basket may possibly be exchanged to Lithos so as to get other things.

In conclusion, the argument is logically unsound. If the author could demonstrate that more than one piece of " Palean" basket can be found in Lithos, the nearby village, that the only way of transmitting this basket is to carried by human to cross the river, that the situation of the river remained the same throughout history, and that there are no reasons for them to communicate with each other, this argument would be much stronger. Without the additional information, however, we will be wary about accepting the argument's conclusion.

Johanna617UID: 2709444

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the so-called Palean baskets which once been found and convinced only existed in Palea were not unique to that village. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites the following facts about a new found: (1) archeologists discovered a “palean” basket in another village Lithos; (2) Lithos is separated with Palea with a very deep and broad river; and (3) lacking of evidence to prove that Paleans had either boats or needs to go across the river. The conclusion may seem right at first glance. However, close scrutiny of each of the facts; it is actually logically unconvincing in several respects.

To begin with, lacking of evidence to show that the new found basket in Lithos is actually the “palean” basket, the implicit rationale behind the speaker’s assumption is too vague to be convinced. Perhaps the new found basket is just similar in exterior appearance to the “palean” basket, but in reality was made hundreds years after; or the broad characteristic is just alike but have some differences in some details. It is unfairly proposed the new found is “palean” basket, if the speaker cannot provide more evidence to prove.

Moreover, even conceding that the new found one is a “palean” basket, there are still some fallacies during the argument, such as the Brim River. Those characters like “deep” or “broad” may changed in history. There may no river in ancient time or just a small one, and no needs for Palea to go across the river by boat. They could easily go across it by feet, or even unneeded, they may go to Lithos by curiosity or other reasons by no obstacle.

Finally, even if there was a deep broad Brim River to separate these two villages, could it completely prevent the communication of the two places? Even there is no need for Palean go to the other bank, the Lithos people may go across the river for food, cloth, or skills. The Lithos may go Palea for the nuts, berries, and small games, and by the way back, they may take some baskets too. Also, the desire to go across the river may not just for food or for survive, in fact, to be a human being, it is most by curiosity or interests that help to find new things rather than just needs. As a result, the percentage for both the two groups of people to go across the river is high.

To sum up, lacking of direct evidence to prove that the basket is made by other people rather than Palea, we can not conclude that “palean” basket is not unique to Palea. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite more evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

xiaxiaobing919UID: 2606450

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the so-called Palean baskets which once been found and convinced only existed in Palea were not unique to that village. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites the following facts about a new found: (1) archeologists discovered a “palean” basket in another village Lithos; (2) Lithos is separated with Palea with a very deep and broad river; and (3) lacking of evidence to prove that Paleans had either boats or needs to go across the river. The conclusion may seem right at first glance. However, close scrutiny of each of the facts; it is actually logically unconvincing in several respects.

To begin with, lacking of evidence to show that the new found basket in Lithos is actually the “palean” basket, and(建议加上，不然两个句子之间没有连接，貌似也不是从句) the implicit rationale behind the speaker’s assumption is too vague to be convinced. Perhaps the new found basket is just similar in exterior appearance to the “palean” basket, but in reality was made hundreds years after; or the broad characteristic is just alike but have some differences in some details. It is unfairly proposed the new found is “palean” basket, if the speaker cannot provide more evidence to prove./ 说basket 不一定是真的

Moreover, even conceding that the new found one is a “palean” basket, there are still some fallacies during the argument, such as the Brim River. Those characters like “deep” or “broad” may changed in history. There may no river in ancient time or just a small one, and no needs for Palean to go across the river by boat. They could easily go across it by feet, or even unneeded,(感觉意思上没有表达的很清楚) they may go to Lithos by curiosity or other reasons by no (without any)obstacle./ 建议这段不说no need 的问题，因为你下段主要是说这个问题，所以会导致文章结构不清晰

Finally, even if there was a deep broad Brim River to separate these two villages, could it completely prevent the communication of the two places? Even there is no need for Palean go to the other bank, the Lithos people may go across the river for food, cloth, or skills. The Lithos may go Palea for the nuts, berries, and small games, and by the way , they may take some baskets too. （感觉比较Chinglish）Also, the desire to go across the river may not just for food or for survive, in fact, to be a human being, it is most by（我发现你用by用的很多，建议改一下，比如 because of， ） curiosity or interests that help to find new things rather than just needs. As a result, the percentage（这个词用的有点陡啊，这段完全没有谈percentage的问题，结论中最好换一个词） for both the two groups of people to go across the river is high.

To sum up, lacking of direct evidence to prove that the basket is made by other people rather than Palea, we can not conclude that “palean” basket is not unique to Palea. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite more evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account（建议把自己在文中提到的几个点都说一下，你这里只归纳了第一个点）