大家帮我看看ARGU1可以不可以这么批？

wyr0426UID: 3041540

1.
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 made only by 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 have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the 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(unique) to Palean .If the Paleans has initiately（initiate v；initial adj） 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(testimony) that the unique pattern are(is) exclusively belongs to the Lithos rather than the Palean.





同学改过以后说这一段逻辑混乱而且自相矛盾
大家有没有什么好的建议？？？~~

蒲若苇UID: 2669670

麻烦把题目发上来

肖邦的眼泪1987UID: 3066646

Merely based on the unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidences, the author concludes that the Palean baskets were not only uniquely Palean. To substantiate this conclusion, the author indicated that such a Palean basket had been discovered in Lithos which was across the Brim River from Palea recently and no proof would show Paleans had boats. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflections reveals that it omits several important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the author’s viewpoint. In my point of view, this argument contains 3 logical flaws.
First of all, the editorial falsely assumes that the present Brim River is unchangedly deep and broad from the prehistoric times to present. This assumption is unwarranted because the condition of the Brim River rarely remains the same over periods of time, and the Brim River might not even exist in prehistoric times. No evidence is proposed to indicate the changing conditions during the long time. There might exist several periods when the Brim River was shallow, or even totally droughty, and during those times Laleons could across the river easily.  
Even the Brim River did exist and be deep and broad between the two prehistoric villages, the argument depends on the assumption that ancient Paleans could not have crossed the river since no Palean boats have been found. Common sense informs that this assumption is a poor one. First, the evidence that no Palean boats have been found is far from sufficient to substantiate the non-existence of boats in ancient Palean, because it is entirely possible that numerous reasons such as unadvanced technology, restrained searching zones could prevent discovering Palean boats. Moreover, not only the boats, but also a myriad of other methods including swimming, constructing bridges, and so forth, could help ancient Paleans to across the river.
Even if assuming that the river have been deep and broad all the time and ancient Paleans did not across the Brim River, still the evidences addressed are not sufficient to prove that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Many other reasons could be the cause of Palean baskets finding in Lithos. For instance, some Palean baskets could be brought by modern people through lots of methods to Lithos, and maybe the Palean baskets are light enough to float in the water and casually reach the other bank. Without ruling these scenarios out, the author cannot establish a cause and effect relationship.
In summary, the author arbitrarily concluded that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Paleon, only based on the incredible assumptions and evidences. To be more persuasive, the argument would have to provide more detail statistics or more convincing proofs such as the changing conditions of the river, remnants of other tools besides the boats, and so on.

wyr0426UID: 3041540

3# 肖邦的眼泪1987
那么说你也觉得  那个瓶子unique to Palean是可以批的咯？

wyr0426UID: 3041540

2# 蒲若苇
贴上啦~帮忙看看吧~