新G Argument 1 求互改~

SakuraguoqiUID：3148198

题干：
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palean 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 Palean. 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.

我的作文：
The argument above appears to be sound, however, the author erroneously oversaw several alternates thus is not persuasive to come to the conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Firstly, time-assuming is open to question. Then, the assumption is not convincing unless enough evidence necessary to ruling out this or other possibility. Besides, no discovery doesn’t mean no existing.
To begin with, the author made an incorrect time relating ratiocination. The present condition of the river doesn’t reasonably represent its ancient figure. Maybe it used to be a tiny shod or even nonexistence, thus the Paleans can get across easily. In a word, present doesn’t cover past.
Moreover, even admit that the river was deep and broad at that time, it cannot prove that the ancient Paleans could only cross it by boat. Perhaps the river was astonishingly short, so that Paleans could get to the Lothos by going around it. In this way, no boat was needed.Another alternate way to get across the river is building a bridge. What if the Palean people built a bridge, which hasn’t been discovered by the archaeologists, to get to the neighbor village? Besides, if the Paleans have made plane-like aircrafts to get across the river, they also needn’t to build a boat. These evidence shows that it’s unwarranted to make this cause-and-effect conclusion.
Further more, on the assumption that the ancient Paleans could have crossed the Brim River only by boat, no enough evidence has been shown to ensure that no Palean boats have been found get to the conclusion that there were really no Palean boats out there. Other transportation which may be obscure for its alternate usage, take the blanket as example, may be used as a boat to get to the other side. Or maybe the boat has not been discovered yet. In these conditions, it cannot be well-assuming that no discovery proves no existing, let along lead to the conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Based on these above specific evidence, it is clear that the author was not well proved his logic chain because of the time-error, non-exclusive-error as well as the mistaken cause-and-effect error. To modify his conclusion, additional evidences are needed. To prove the Brim River was deep and broad as well as long in the ancient time, and prove no alternate transportation has been use to get to another side of the river, all these can strengthen this deduction.
我的提纲：
1 现在河深不代表过去河深
2 不一定只有船这一种工具
3 没发现船不代表不存在船

wang6631UID：3245402

The argument above appears to be sound,(.) however, the author erroneously oversaw(oversees) several alternates ,thus is not(making the argument) persuasive to come to the conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
    Firstly, time-assuming is open to question. Then, the assumption is not convincing( not convincing 与 open to question 重复) unless enough evidence necessary to ruling out this or other possibility is provided. Besides, no discovery doesn’t mean no existing.(具体分析？)
    To begin with, the author made an incorrect time relating ratiocination. The present condition of the river doesn’t reasonably represent its ancient figure. Maybe it used to be a tiny shod or even nonexistence, thus the Paleans can get across the river easily. In a word, present doesn’t cover past.(多余)
Moreover, even admitting that the river was deep and broad at that time, it cannot prove that the ancient Paleans could only cross it by boat. Perhaps the river was astonishingly short, so that Paleans could get to the Lothos by going around it(taking detours). In this way, no boat was needed. Another alternate way to get across the river is building a bridge. What if the Palean people built a bridge, which hasn’t been discovered by the archaeologists, to get to the neighbor village? Besides, if the Paleans have made plane-like aircrafts to get across the river, they also needn’t to build a boat. (not reasonable)These evidence shows that it’s unwarranted to make this cause-and-effect conclusion.
Furthermore, on the assumption（even assuming） that the ancient Paleans could have crossed the Brim River only by boat, no enough evidence has been shown to ensure that no Palean boats have been found get to the conclusion that there were really no Palean boats out there. Other transportation which may be obscure for its alternate usage, take the blanket as example, may be used as a boat to get to the other side. Or maybe the boat has not been discovered yet. (no development ) In these conditions, it cannot be well-assuming that no discovery proves no existing, let along lead to the conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Based on these above specific evidence, it is clear that the author was not well proved (didn't well prove) his logic chain because of the time-error, non-exclusive-error as well as the mistaken cause-and-effect error. To modify his conclusion, additional evidences are needed. To(to) prove (that)the Brim River was deep and broad as well as long in the ancient time, and prove(that) no alternate transportation has been use to get to another side of the river, all these can strengthen this deduction.
1.过渡感觉做得较好。
2.许多点未深入，只有一句话不够有力。
3.语法用词错与较多

wang6631UID：3245402

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1337114-1-1.html 也求互改

SakuraguoqiUID：3148198

The argument above appears to be sound,(.) however, the author erroneously oversaw(oversees) several alternates ,thus is not(making the argument) persuasive to come to the conclusion that the so-calle ...
wang6631 发表于 2012-2-24 20:49

多谢！
的确分析不够深入，看来我还是应该再看看别人怎么分析
再次感谢！

去互改了哦~