Argument 1，逻辑可能有大问题，求拍

CinbladyyuUID: 2957697

ARGUMENT 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.

In this argument, the author contends plausibly that the Palean baskets weren’t uniquely original of Palean, which is supported by evidence that these baskets were discovered in Lithos which is across the Brim River from Palean, a river that is very deep and broad now, making it impossible to cross it without boats, and the author also provides evidence no boats have been found. But after a close scrutiny, the seemingly sound claim falls apart for being short of effective evidence.
Lithos is across a deep and broad river from Palean, as the passage expounds. But the author lacks a evidence about others means of transporting. To be specific, what’s the exact meaning of “broad”? Is it just too broad for a man swimming across? In this case, one can easily get to Lithos from Palean by circumventing the river by means of walking or riding, which could certainly weaken the argument. Moreover, even though the river is too broad for men to either cross it or circumvent it, it’s still precipitous to draw a conclusion based on the existing evidence, which is lacking conditions of the surroundings during prehistoric history. There’s a chance that the river is arid and people from Palean could arrive at Lithos with no effort.
Conceding all of evidence discussed above could be overlooked, the argument is still not sound, because the crux which the author is unaware of lies in the perquisite of this argument, which leads to a flaw in logic for the author makes a presumption that the baskets were derived from Palean. It’s true that the baskets were found in the immediate vicinity of Palean, but what if it’s of equally distance or even more closer to Lithos? The author doesn’t provide evidence like that, which couldn’t convince me that the baskets were originated from Palean.
In sum, the author is casual about the evidence he provide, which would just contribute to drawing a false conclusion. To be more scientific and logical, what the author should keep in mind that only effective and thorough evidence could lead to plausible conclusions.