Argument 37 第一次写，非常希望大家指点！谢谢

trap9UID: 194532

题目
37 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
On the basis of three seemingly convincing arguments which
suggest that the ancient Paleans could only cross the Brim
River by boat and they had neither boats nor needs to cross
the river, the arguer concludes that the so-called Palean
baskets were not unique to Palea. However, with careful
examinations of the evidence and logic used to support this
view, several serious fallacies have been exposed in naked
absurdity.

First of all, the evidence that the Brim River is very deep
and broad fails to give sufficient support of the conclusion
that the ancient Paleans could only cross the river by boat
in that the argument does not take into account of the evolution
process of earth surface. Due to the lack of historical and
geographical information about the river, it cannot be inferred
that the ancient Brim River was as deep and broad as it is now.
In addition, the Paleans could have used ways other than going by
boat to reach the other side of the river like building bridges
even if the river was deep and broad as assumed.

Another unconvincing reasoning lies in the notion that Paleans
had no boats. To justify the claim, the arguer provides that
boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not
developed until thousands of years after the Paleans disappeared.
This argument is questionable since the Paleans might have
relatively small and primitive boats that admit fewer people
and woven baskets. Thus no persuasive evidence is provided to
disprove that the Paleans could have boats, which invalidates
the argument.

Next conclusion that the Paleans had no need to cross the river
exhibits mere ridiculousness with groundless inferences. The
fact that the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and
small game loans no support to this conclusion as causal connections
between them are missing. The abundance in food could not guarantee
that the Paleans would stay in their villages -- they might want
to exchange goods with people across the river. Moreover, there is
no direct link between the need to cross the river and the occurence
of Palean people or baskets on the other river side as third parties
might be involved in the transmitting.

As the final conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were
not unique to Palea is made, more serious logical problems arise.
It is obvious to see that the three conclusions mentioned above
suggest the Paleans would not be able to cross the river, which
then implies it was not likely that the Palean baskets would be
found on the other river side. Consequently, all the evidence
provided by the arguer conflicts with the new discovery.

All in all, the arguer failed to provide supportive evidence for
the new discovery and the conclusion. Thus the argument conclusion
stands baselessly. To better the argument, the arguer must provide
counterevidence of the uniqueness of the Palean baskets and analyse
how the spread of them can possibly be achieved.

poohUID: 146994

先把题目贴出来啊

trap9UID: 194532

顶一下：）
还没入门，第一次写，希望能得到大家的指点，
不管多少都由衷感谢～