Phoenix写作小组5号argument40

kusinerlooUID: 2608701

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.

In the argument the author claims that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To support his claims, the author points out that the archaeologists discovered such a Palean baskets in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River form the Palea. However, close scrutiny of the evidence and the author's line of reasoning reveals little credible support to the author's claims.

   To begin with, the author's claims are based on the ungrounded assumptions that the Brim River Has been their since the people settled down in the prehistoric village of Palea. The author fails to consider that whether the geography of the Palea has changed for such a long period of time. It is entirely possible that when the people lived in the Palea, there were no river at all, or the river is not so deep and broad that people could get to the opposite bank without many difficulties. So the Palean baskets could be taken to the Lithos. Either scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's claims that the Palean baskets were not unique to the Palea.

   Secondly, even if the assumptions former was correct, the author falsely assumes that the Paleans could not crossed it as there was no evidence that the Paleans had boats. Howver, the author fails to support it. First, lacking of the evidence that the Paleans had boats does not necessatily indicate that the Paleans had no boats, Perhaps their boats have not been discoveied by the archaeologises. Second, the author points out that boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Paleans disappeared. While, the author takes for granted that the boats and the cargos are the only means to across the river. Perhaps that the Paleans across the rivers in the winter--when the river iced up. In a word, the author can not convince that the Paleans could not crosse the river even if the river was deep and broad at that time.

   Thirdly, the author unfairly infers that the Paleans would have had no need to cross the rive as the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game.However,  the author fails to consider several factors about their need to cross the river. First, perhaps that the population were so large that the resource in the Palea would be isufficient to support them. Second, considering that the need for human to existance requires far more than nuts, berries and small game. The Palean need to cross the river to gain the material which was lack of in the palea. In sum, the author fails to support that the Paleans would have no need to cross the rever.

   In sum,the argument is dubious at best. Before I can accept the claims, the author must first to support that the river has been there from the prehistoric times. In addition, the author must provide the evidence to support that the paleans could not cross that the river at that time. What is more, the author should need to convince that the paleans had no need to cross the rever with more detial informations.

Jane114UID: 2681579

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.

In the argument the author claims that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To support his claims, the author points out that the archaeologists discovered such a “Palean” [baskets](basket) in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River form the Palea. However,
(a) close scrutiny of the evidence and the author's line of reasoning reveals little credible support to the author's claims.

   To begin with, the author's claims are based on the ungrounded assumptions that the Brim River [Has]（has） been their since the people settled down in the prehistoric village of Palea. The author fails to consider that whether the geography of the Palea has changed for such a long period of time. It is entirely possible that when the people lived in the Palea, there were no river at all, or the river is not so deep and broad that people could get to the opposite bank without many difficulties. So the Palean baskets could be taken to the Lithos. Either scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's claims that the Palean baskets were not unique to the Palea.
河在当时可能不存在或很浅
   Secondly, even if the 【assumptions former was correct】（river was indeed broad and deep at Palean time）, the author falsely assumes that the Paleans could not crossed it as there was no evidence that the Paleans had boats.【 Howver, 】（前后两句话逻辑是同意，不该用转折）the author fails to support it. First, lacking of the evidence that the Paleans had boats does not 【necessatily】（necessarily） indicate that the Paleans had no boats, 【Perhaps】perhaps their boats have not been discovered by the 【archaeologises】.（ archaeologists） Second, the author points out that boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Paleans disappeared. While, the author takes for granted that the boats and the cargos are the only means to across the river. Perhaps that the Paleans across the rivers in the winter--when the river iced up. In a word, the author can not convince that the Paleans could not crosse the river even if the river was deep and broad at that time.
即使河宽且深，p也可能过河。

   Thirdly, the author unfairly infers that the Paleans would have had no need to cross the river as the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. However, the author fails to consider several factors about their need to cross the river. First, perhaps that the population were so large that the resource in the Palea would be isufficient to support them. Second, considering that the need for human to existance requires far more than nuts, berries and small game. The Palean need to cross the river to gain the material which was lack of in the palea. In sum, the author fails to support that the Paleans would have no need to cross the 【rever】（river）.
即使物产丰富，p居民也可能想过河。

   In sum, the argument is dubious at best. Before I can accept the claims, the author must first to support that the river has been there from the prehistoric times. In addition, the author must provide the evidence to support that the paleans could not cross that the river at that time. What is more, the author should need to convince that the paleans had no need to cross the 【rever】（river） with more 【detial informations】（detail information）.

本文逻辑很好，基本将文章中的漏洞全部攻击了，而且言之有理。只需注意一下单词拼写和一些单复数的搭配就可以了。