第一篇A..好不容易憋出来了

wyr0426UID: 3041540

逻辑主线

Baskets previously found only in Pàdistinctive to P

Deep and broad riveràP people could only cross it by boat

No boats found in Pàthe P people and the L people cannot meet






【正文】（括号里的是自己改出来的写错的字= =）
Citing the archaeologists’ discovery that distinctive baskets which have previously been found only in Palea are recently found in Lithos, the arguer concludes that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean concerning the deep and broad Brim River which seems cannot becrossed without a boat between the two villages. To bolster his assertion, the arguer also takes the fact that no boats have been found there. Although the conclusion sounds reasonable at the first glimpse, a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and several logical flaws may seriously undermine this argument.

Admittedly, the arguer' assumptions that the baskets' recent presence in Lithos works relatively well when considering the particular distinctive pattern, it may not substantially indicate that woven baskets were not uniquely to Palean .If the Paleans has initiately designed those unique woven baskets and somehow obtained by the Lithos, the argument will proved to be unvalid(invalid). To validate his assumption, the argument should firstly give us the evidence that the unique pattern are exclusively belongs to the Lithos rather than the Palean.

      
     
If the woven baskets are verified unique to the Lithos people, the argument can be thought to be demonstrated. Whereas, if not, the arguer have no evidence that during the prehistoric time the
Brim River was so deep and broad as today that the Lithos cannot cross the river. Furthermore, no Palean boats have been found ought not to be regard as any convincing attestation if the arguer cannot give specific evidence to confirm it. It may be of great probability that the boats were made of wood so that they had been decompositioned by the microorganism as time went by.


Furthermore, specific evidence should be given that the ancient Paleans could have crossed the river only by boat. Actually, the Palea can arrive at Lithos through other approaches. Maybe they walked along the river until they reached the end of the river and then they crossed it without difficulty. Whether the geographic surroundings or the terrain are not accessed to us, thus making the conclusion that the baskets are not uniquely Palean is far from persvasive(persuasive). From another aspect, why could not the Lithos people went to Palea by the Lithos's boats? The arguer haven't mention that the Lithos people could not build up a boat. Lastly, we are not informed that whether the Palean people and the Lithos people have grasp the skills to construct a bridge, which had been ruined for some climatic reasons or not, to cross the river.

In the final analysis, tenable would be the argument if the arguer gives specific evidence that the distinctive pattern belongs to the Lithos culture, and the prehistoric terrain around the two villiages. In order to be more convincing, the arguer is also highly recommended to rule out the assumption that whether people at that prehistoric time have the ability to build up boats or bridges. As all of the above assumptions corroborated, the argument can safely come to the conclusion.