Argument37 第3篇 请大家帮忙看看

figogoUID: 175735

Argument37  第3篇
argument中这种人文类的文章第一次写，写得不顺，1个小时才写完，请大家帮忙看看吧：）

------题目------
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 unique to 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 only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.

------正文------
In this argument，the arguer concludes that the Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that this pattern of baskets was also discovered in another ancient village called Lithos. Meanwhile, the argument is based on an assumption that the ancient Paleans could not cross the river between two villages. However, the argument is problematic in many aspects.

First of all, the arguer unfairly infers from recent geographic conditions of the Brim River that the river must also be broad and deep in the ancient time. Absent evidence to support this inference, it is entirely likely that in the prehistoric time the river is quite shallow or there was even no this river at all. For that matter, the Paleans could reach Lithos without many difficulties. If so, then the basket found in Lithos was probably brought from Palea.

In the second place, the mere fact that large boats were not available for the Paleans does not necessarily indicate that they were not able to cross the river by other means. Perhaps by simply making some canoes, a few of them carrying their necessities including baskets might cross the river and settle in Lithos.

In addition, another assumption underlying the argument that Paleans would cross the river only for the purpose of searching for food is also open to doubt. They might go to Lithos for other needs such as playing for fun or they might even get there by chance.

Finally, even if the ancient Paleans failed to get to Lithos, there is no evidence to rule out the possibility that others, such as the contemporary visitors, may unconsciously take one basket from Palea to Lithos. If this is the case, depending on these limited facts, the arguer may make a great mistake.

In sum, the argument has several flaws as discussed above. Before the conclusion about the origin of the Palean basket is drawn, more information about the prehistoric geographic conditions of the Brim River and the living habits of Paleans is needed.

figogoUID: 175735

up一下，怎么没人理我？

imjasonUID: 176604

我觉得很好啊
我只是列了这个提纲，还没开始写了！
惭愧啊！！！

ryanqUID: 154025

第一段中规中矩，不错。
First of all, the arguer unfairly infers from recent geographic conditions of the Brim River that the river must also be broad and deep in the ancient time. Absent evidence to support this inference, it is entirely likely that in the prehistoric time the river is quite shallow or there was even no this river at all有点别扭. For that matter, the Paleans could reach Lithos without many difficulties(google了一下，没有结果). If so, then the basket found in Lithos was probably brought from Palea.

In the second place, the mere fact that large boats were not available for the Paleans does not necessarily indicate that they were not able to cross the river by other means. Perhaps by simply making some canoes, a few of them carrying their necessities including baskets might cross the river and settle in Lithos关于船在P存在之前就没有的说法没有进行反驳，而且举的例子是canoe，最好说明一下，大船造不了，但可以造小船。

Finally, even if the ancient Paleans failed to get to Lithos, there is no evidence to rule out the possibility that others, such as the contemporary visitors, may unconsciously take one basket from Palea to Lithos.（晕，有点牵强） If this is the case, depending on these limited facts, the arguer may make a great mistake.

First of all 和Second of all要对应
或者用In the first place和In the second place
千万别混着。

总的来说上下文衔接的不错，
论证得可以再充分些，略显单薄。

figogoUID: 175735

多谢批改！