阿狗限时成功处女作求狠拍！

蓝与阑珊UID: 2667046

TOPIC: ARGUMENT37 - Woven 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.
WORDS: 444
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-9 10:47:59

In this argument, the author claims that since the Palean basket was founded in Lithos, the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palean. He also point out some reasons, for instance, the Lithos people were not able to cross the Brim River which is very deep and broad. At the first glance, this conclusion seems to be convincing. However, further reflection tells that it might be very doubtful because of several flaws.
First and foremost, the author thought that the Brim River is too deep to cross for the ancient Paleans, because the boats which are capable for carrying people and cargo were developed until thousands of years later. But this reason is unfounded. At the first place, there is no evidence to prove that the Brim River today might not exist at the ancient time, thus the Palea people could easily cross this place without big ships. It is also possible that assuming this river was lain between those two villages, the people could cross it by building bridge. Without ruling out all these possibilities, this conclusion would not be convincing enough.
In addition the arguer also said that the Palean people have had no need to cross the river for the reason that they could get full of food at their own side. However, this claim suffers from the flaw that the Palena people were willing to cross the river just for the need of food. But common sense tells us that they might be willing to cross the river for many other needs, such as for communication or for fun. Since the basic assumption is not acceptable, the result might not be good enough to believe.
Before I come to my conclusion, there is still a logic flaw in this argument that makes it very doubtful. The author falsely assumes that only by the Palea people's arriving, the so-called Palean basket could be taken to Lithos. Yet there are myriads of other possibilities that the Palean baskets could be taken across the Brim River. It could be taken by some other ancient people while travelling; and it is quiet possible that some people after that historical period found the Palea baskets and then took them to Litho area before our discovery. Since there are still lots of other ways to take those baskets across this river, we could make any sound conclusion before further studies are worked out.
In sum, the arguer's conclusion is lack of evidence and also unconvincing. To make it more sound, the author should provide some other proofs including all the questionable ones discussed above. Not till that, we could accept any conclusion based on these assumptions.

plukaUID: 2721764

TOPIC: ARGUMENT37 - Woven 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.
WORDS: 444
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-9 10:47:59

In this argument, the author claims that since the Palean basket was founded in Lithos, the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palean. He also point out some reasons, for instance, the Lithos people were not able to cross the Brim River which is very deep and broad. At the first glance, this conclusion seems to be convincing. However, further reflection tells that it might be very doubtful because of several flaws.

First and foremost, the author thought that the Brim River is too deep to cross for the ancient Paleans, because the boats which are capable for carrying people and cargo were developed until thousands of years later. But this reason is unfounded. At the first place, there is no evidence to prove that the Brim River today might not exist at the ancient time（句式糅杂。该句应该是说不能证明古代也有河，前面已经有了'no evidence'后面就不用might not，双重否定意思反了）, thus the Palea people could easily cross this place without big ships. It is also possible that assuming（去掉） this river was lain between those two villages, the people could cross it by building bridge. Without ruling out all these possibilities, this conclusion would not be convincing enough.
In addition the arguer also（与in addition意思重复） said that the Palean people have had no need to cross the river for the reason that they could get full of food（其实题目没有说是full of food，而是部分food比如小动物小果子什么的，也许他们还吃别的要到对岸去获得） at their own side. However, this claim suffers from the flaw that the Palena people were willing to cross the river just for the need of food. But common sense tells us that they might be willing to cross the river for many other needs, such as for communication or for fun. Since the basic assumption is not acceptable, the result might not be good enough to believe.（建议不要用太多not，比如not acceptable可以直接写unacceptable，显得简洁。后面一句not be good enough 也可以直接从正面说unverified之类，简洁少绕弯给人的印象会比较好）
Before I come to my conclusion, there is still a logic flaw in this argument that makes it very doubtful. The author falsely assumes that only by the Palea people's arriving, the so-called Palean basket could be taken to Lithos. Yet there are myriads of other possibilities that the Palean baskets could be taken across the Brim River. It could be taken by some other ancient people while travelling; and it is quiet（quite) possible that some people after that historical period found the Palea baskets and then took them to Litho area before our discovery. Since there are still lots of other ways to take those baskets across this river, we（是the author吧） could (+not) make any sound conclusion before further studies are worked out.
In sum, the arguer's conclusion is lack of evidence and also unconvincing. To make it more sound, the author should provide some other proofs including all the questionable ones discussed above. Not till that, we could accept any conclusion based on these assumptions.

羡慕一下限时成功真好……

语言上再简洁些，少犯点语法或者句式错误就好了~
附上自己的一篇阿狗，71，欢迎回拍！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1059077&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D102

落雪飞花2008UID: 2579536

In this argument, the author claims that since the Palean basket was founded in Lithos, the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palean. He also point out some reasons, for instance, the Lithos people were not able to cross the Brim River which is very deep and broad. At the first glance, this conclusion seems to be convincing. However, further reflection tells that it might be very doubtful because of several flaws.开头一般没有什么漏洞，但是建议如果要列出作者的论据，就全部列出来，因为这样不仅是吧作者的论据列出来，也是把他的攻击点列出来。

First and foremost, the author thought that the Brim River is too deep to cross for the ancient Paleans, because the boats which are capable for carrying people and cargo were developed until thousands of years later. But this reason is unfounded. At the first place, there is no evidence to prove that the Brim River today might not exist at the ancient time（这句话有歧义，没有证明表明今天的这条河在古代不存在，双重否定变成肯定啦。根据你后面那句，建议改成It is possible that the  Brim  River might not exist in the ancient time）, thus the Palea people could easily cross this place without big ships. It is also possible that assuming this river was lain between those two villages, the people could cross it by building bridge. 个人感觉造桥有点牵强啊， 连游泳都不行只能用船， 造桥的时候怎么造啊，建议改成用独木舟后竹筏一类比较容易制造的工具来反驳吧Without ruling out all these possibilities, this conclusion would not be convincing enough.

In addition the arguer also said that the Palean people have had no need to cross the river for the reason that they could get full of food at their own side. However, this claim suffers from the flaw that the Palena people were willing to cross the river just for the need of food. But common sense tells us that they might be willing to cross the river for many other needs, such as for communication or for fun. Since the basic assumption is not acceptable, the result might not be good enough to believe.真正反驳的就红色的那一小句，建议多充实一下

Before I come to my conclusion, there is still a logic flaw in this argument that makes it very doubtful. The author falsely assumes that only by the Palea people's arriving, the so-called Palean basket could be taken to Lithos. Yet there are myriads of other possibilities that the Palean baskets could be taken across the Brim River. It could be taken by some other ancient people while travelling; and it is quiet possible that some people after that historical period found the Palea baskets and then took them to Litho area before our discovery. Since there are still lots of other ways to take those baskets across this river, we could make any sound conclusion before further studies are worked out.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion is lack of evidence and also unconvincing. To make it more sound, the author should provide some other proofs including all the questionable ones discussed above. Not till that, we could accept any conclusion based on these assumptions.

恩，主要的攻击点都有了，但是论证方面稍显不足， 多看范文吧。一起加油， 我正好也有一篇这个话题的，狠狠回一下啊。多谢
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1057742-1-1.html[b] 1# 蓝与阑珊

bzr2915UID: 2612029

字数不太吉利哈~

蓝与阑珊UID: 2667046

2# pluka

十分感谢！