Argument 1 求批改

tingdirenUID??2599348

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 arguer concludes that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely belong to Palean. To support the conclusion, the author points out that the Brim River is very deep and broad, and no Palean boats have been found. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal that the conclusion is unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, the author simply assumes that the ancient Paleans didn’t arrive in Lithos indeed. The only evidence the author gives is that the Brim River between Palean and Lithos is very deep and broad, so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and nothing have been found. However, it is insufficient to prove his poor assumption. It is quiet possible that in ancient times, the Brim River may not be as deep and broad as it is today, and the ancient Paleans could crossed it easily. Although there is no data show that the ancient Paleans have boats, they can cross the river by some boat-like artifacts, such as raft or buoy. Therefore, without ruling out all other possibilities that may lead to the non-existence of the river and the existent of the boat at that time, the author cannot convince me that the Brim was so deep and broad that the ancient Paleans were unable to cross it impossibly.

In addition, the author unfairly claims that the Woven baskets appeared in Lithos was exclusively made by the ancient Paleans. Based on the argument that the ancient Paleans cannot get to Lithos, the author assumes that the Woven baskets were not unique to Palean. Unluckily, he fails to consider the possibility that the baskets may arrive in Lithos through other means. It is quite possible that people from other place could have brought Woven baskets to Lithos. Imagining that people from neither Palean nor Lithos, who can cross the river by swim had the ability to build the boat at that time, bring the Woven baskets to Lithos. Without ruling out the likelihood that other people brought baskets to Lithos, I cannot believe ancient Paleans are the only manufacturer of Woven baskets in Lithos.

Finally, even if all the foregoing assumptions are justified, the argument still suffers from a presumption that baskets found in Lithos might be made by Lithos themselves. And it’s also possible that the offspring of the ancient Paleans bring Woven baskets to Lithos after people can build boat several years later. C-Isotope Tracer Method is recommended to identify if the Woven baskets found in two areas were coeval. If they were found to possess the same age, it may suggest that the ancient Lithos made Woven baskets by themselves; otherwise, the author cannot convince me.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should have to demonstrate the existence of the Brim River and no other tools than boat can help the ancient Paleans cross the river. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the author can provide more evidence to rule out possibilities of other people to bring the Woven baskets to Lithos.

gogo小西西123UID??3369308

同为argument1
  求修改，求交流