求拍argument33

xwjsarahUID: 2627269

33.The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered分散 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 analysis ,the arguer claims that the distinctively shaped ceramic pots are spreaded by migration instead of trade .To support the conclusion ,the arguer opoints out that there is a special metallic element ,which has scattered in those bones that
have been found near the pots .In addition ,the research has shown that the special metallic element contained in
foods is stongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood .The analysis is unconvincing for several critical flaws .
From the argument ,we can find that arguer’s assumption is based on an unsound prerequisite ,that is those bones
belonged to the people who lived in a same place with their childhood time .However， arguer doesn’t enumerate any warranted evidence to substantiate the assuption .
Although those bones which have contained that kind of special metallic element have found and existed amount of quantity ,there is no evidence to prove that the special metellic element
existed in only one place .So the argument couldn’t emerge that kind of bones impossibly
belonged to other people who were from another places .Furthermore , arguer holds the saying that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites ,which only indicates that the pots in that a few sites were speaded by migration .The conclusion summerized above that can’t prove that another pots scattered in another places were also speaded by migration .
Posteriorly ,even if the precondition is sound ,which can not confirm that those pots scattered over wide area is only by migration . In other words ,the pots can be spreaded with the people who were hunting and hiking to different places ,coincidently ,the people died on the road and those pots were left behind.
To sum up ,the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains .To strengthen the argument ,the arguer should provide more evidence concerning the bones found in a few sites belonged to the people who lived in a same place in their childhood .To better eveluate the argument ,we would need more information about the scattered quantity of the special metallic element and the scatterer places .what’s more ,we need to know more about the people’s living style and habitat settling methods .

ella_dylUID: 2595060

33.The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots 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 analysis ,the arguer claims that the distinctively shaped ceramic pots are spread by migration instead of trade .To support the conclusion ,the arguer points out that there is a special metallic element ,which has scattered in those bones that have been found near the pots .In addition ,the research has shown that the special metallic element contained in foods is strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood .The analysis is unconvincing for several critical flaws .
开头很好，结论前提都交代清楚了~~只是全文拼写错误较多，尤其是spread这个词，过去式过去分词都一样，不加-ed

From the argument ,we can find that arguer’s assumption is based on an unsound prerequisite ,that is those bones belonged to the people who lived in a same place with their childhood time .However，arguer doesn’t enumerate any warranted evidence to substantiate the assumption . Although those bones which have contained that kind of special metallic element have found（这里用被动吧） and existed amount of quantity, there is no evidence to prove that the special metallic element existed in only one place. So the argument couldn’t emerge that kind of bones impossibly belonged to other people who were from another places.

Furthermore, arguer holds the saying that many of the bones found（同样是主被动问题） near the pots at a few sites, which only indicates that the pots in that a few sites were spread by migration .The conclusion summarized above that can’t prove that another pots scattered in another places were also spread by migration.


Posteriorly, even if the precondition is sound, which（这里用定语从句不当） can not confirm that those pots scattered over wide area is only by migration. In other words, the pots can be spread with（这里应该用by） the people who were hunting and hiking to different places. (这里另起一句吧)Coincidently, the people died on the road and those pots were left behind.

To sum up ,the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains .To strengthen the argument ,the arguer should provide more evidence concerning the bones found in a few sites belonged to the people who lived in a same place in their childhood .To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the scattered quantity(分散的数量？这是什么意思？) of the special metallic element and the scattered places .what’s more ,we need to know more about the people’s living style and habitat settling methods .
这篇文章我前几天列的提纲，考古学的东西感觉挺恶心的，但是仔细分析一下还是有些头绪的。
首先就这篇文章而言，我觉得你的二、三段其实攻击的都是一个点，就是无论是element还是bone都只是局部代表，不说明别的地方也有，所以不能说明是migration。
这个点没有问题，但是你并没有很好的展开，尤其是第三段，只是不停的在重复观点。
同样，没有展开的问题在第四段也比较明显~~这带来最表面的现象就是整个文章中间显得比较单薄
事实上，我觉得你的点重新整合一下再加些东西整个文章就会比较充实
我自己的提纲是这样的：
1. 首先，陶壶在各地都有不一定是由于传播，可能本来就是各地独有的；即使是由于传播，除了移民与贸易还有很多其他途径，比如陶壶所在地人们去各地玩……
2. 我们不知道任何有关含有high levels of element食物的背景信息：元素的迁移不一定是由于人的迁移，有可能由于食物买卖或是食物链（外地动物食用后再被当地人食用）。
3.即使是由于人的迁移，也不一定是移民。有可能是陶壶制造地的人们狩猎，远行，却死在中途。
最后，花一些时间注意一下拼写和基本语法
以上，加油！！

xwjsarahUID: 2627269

谢谢你为我改的作文你的提纲对我很有启发。我的思路是，文章的前题是那些骨头是否属于同一地方的人，而这些人是从小就一起迁移的，先从这个前提开始辩驳。然后开始辩驳论据，就的那种特殊的金属的分布问题，不能证明只有那个地方存在这样的金属。第三点就是即使那的pots是迁移传播的，但不一定是移民，和你的第三点样。
你平时都用什么资料准备提纲？我感觉我们的提纲好像不太一样。b] 2# ella_dyl

ella_dylUID: 2595060

3# xwjsarah
我用的东西挺杂的，大多都是坛子里下的