argument37--欢迎狠拍

fchenyanUID: 2804020

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: 349
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-07-20 11:07:50

The author draw a conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea after a consideration about the discovered "Paleans" basket in Lithos and the possibility for the ancient village to across the Brim River from Paleans. However the argument suffers from several logical flaws making it not convincing.

Firstly, the argument is based on the assumption that the depth never change through so many years. Every one with some geography knowledge or not, know that physiognomy is changing all the time with the effect of both the natural power and our human being's. What's more, the depth of a river may vary by season, like deluge and drought. There's possibility that there is no this river at all so they can across that area easily or they crossed the river in one droughty summer. So whether there is a river there in thousands of years ago and whether it is deep or broad if it existed are to be studied. The necessary of the author's consideration about how can they across the Brim River is dubious.

Secondly, even if we assume that the assumption of the author can be substantiated, the author's conjecture that they can only have crossed it by boat. However, when an ordinary people obstructed by something he or she may choose to detour, why cannot ancient people do? Without exclude the possibility of this, the conjecture is in absence of acceptable grounds. Even so, why cannot they be carried by something like log? There are primitive methods other than by boat, and most of them are still kept as secret to unearth. So the saying of the author that the ancient people can only cross the river by boat is groundless.
Thirdly, the assumption that they can only cross the river by something that can carry groups of people is also questionable. It is a common sense that primitive tribes may spring from several people, and they may have greatly increased their population through hundreds of years' living and multiplying. On the other side, they can cross the river several a time, there’s no evidence shows that possibility is not be permitted.
Even if the ancient people cannot cross the river, there’s possibility that things of the ancient in Palean are brought to Lithos for some reason that if unknown. Since there are thousands of years we are not completely clear which make it unconvincing to draw a conclusion based on several of known signals.
In summary, the problem whether the so-called Palean baskets were unique or not to Palea is still ambiguous with the information provided by the author. To draw a convincing conclusion, more detailed and in-depth study is needed.

neverjustUID: 2848024

语言很流畅
主要说攻击点
个人认为，你的通篇其实都在说过河问题，河流的变化，过河的方法等等，你说的很具体很详细，也比较有调理。但我觉得这只是这个题目的一个方面，还有一个个人认为挺重要的问题你没有论证——有没有过河的必要。文中说有坚果啥的他们不愁吃喝，但是这并不代表他们没有过河的必要。如果说完善的话，你还可以说说，有没有可能是其他地区的人来到这个村子，把这种篮子带走等等。
就看你是觉得，只要选择某几个点说清楚就行。还是想把几个重要的点都找出来。

fchenyanUID: 2804020

2# neverjust 加上你这个就全了哈