ARGUMENT78 by 都说了不是又八 拍者请留链接

都说了不是又八UID: 2728357

懒得N久没写N久没发帖子了。嘛，四月底考试，希望能够在周一之前看过所有的Argument提纲。这就权当是回归帖吧。

先贴一篇刚写的……来而不往就是非礼= =各位如果把这篇修改好了，就留下个链接，我就链回去给你改一篇哈。



TOPIC: ARGUMENT78 -

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of an archaeological magazine.


"Archaeologists excavated a cave that had been inhabited by prehistoric people for thousands of years. These people hunted wild animals, many of whose bones were found at levels corresponding to different times of habitation. Most of the bones at the oldest levels, over 40,000 years old, were from a deer species whose modern-day descendants are known to prefer woodland habitats, whereas most of the bones at more recent levels, dating from 30,000 to 10,000 years ago, were from a gazelle species whose modern-day descendants are known to prefer grasslands. We can thus conclude that the climate of the area changed dramatically between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago, causing the terrain to change from woodland to grassland."

WORDS: 573 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2010-4-10 15:45:58




In the article, the author tries to explain a huge change geographily, by merely one witness of several archaeologist discoveries. This could be overestimating the fact.


Fundementally, all the assumptions are based on a discovery, according to th archaeological magazine. However, there are two possibilities to tap over the assertion. For one, the bones of animals in the cave, may not indicate that all of the animals are being hunt by one group of people, and what's more, may not be the animals living adjacent to the cave. It could be possible for a prehistoric tribe to carry the bones out of religional reasons from one place to another; it could be a flood rushing the bones with the dirt together to a distant location, which is the new home of another group of people 10,000 years later, and the new tribe could just bury the new bones, mixing the bones from the first place. For another, according to the message above, the animals' modern-day descendants are more fond of woodlands and grasslands, but their prehistoric ancestors may not be that ticklish of where they live, or they could be just trapped around the cave, or else, they could be just captivated and hunted on the way of migration. In short, myriad of possibilities could take place, and it could be unwise for the author to assert a terrain change from one spot of animal bones, in strong influence by human actions.



Besides, woodland and grassland could not be clearly distinguished like prairies and rainforests. Actually, in the subtropical zone on the earth, all the terrains are simply mixing together, sorting them out by definite borders could end in vain. Thus, the animals living on the soil could be segregating, twisting, swirling like spools and threads. Even if the cave is located in somewhere with clear enough terrain difference now, with thousands of years passed by, we could not assert that in prehistoric days, woodlands and grasslands are deviding up into zones clearly.


Still, arguing a dramatic terrain change from the disparity of some animal bones could be overstating the fact. How much does it take from a woodland to turn to a grassland? Glades, which are the empty lands in a forest, are routinely seen in the forest adventures. What's more, where would the prehistoric people choose to settle down and make their living? Answer A could be a cave in a bold, vast grassland; answer B could be a cave in the wet, vampant forest; answer C, which may more likely to be choosen by common sense, in a region where the woods and the grassland are mixing up. Choosing the C area could help in two ways: on the first hand, it could avoid the difficulty living in a forest such as the harassment of the wild animals; on the other hand, abundant resources for hunting and foraging could both be satisfied. Anyway, imagining a dramastic change of terrain could not be reasonable, for in the prehistoric period, those are regions strongly repulsed by the tribes for they are both dangerous and short of food.



In a word, the author may be overestimating the changes in the area. If a dramastic change in terrain will be reasoned, there must be accordingly a dramastic amount of evidences in support. With only one discovery of some bones mixing together and a conclusion with a vast change, there seems little connections between them.


另：开头和结尾是在还有两分钟左右的时候补的，尤其是开头，苍白得紧。希望不要在上面做太多文章，谢谢。

手都废了……呃。