Argument37 同主题写作

haodongkingUID: 2101796

37Woven 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.


In this argument, the arguer recommends that Woven baskets which were also discovered in Lithos were not unique to Palea. To prove this recommendation,  the arguer points out that as Brim River is very deep and broad, the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat while no evidence proves that the Paleans had boats. Meanwhile boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, the arguer also points out that since Palea are full of nuts, berries and small game, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river. At first glance, the recommendation is specific and convincing. Close scrutiny to each of these factors, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

First of all, the arguer provides no information about the Brim River in prehistoric time. Consider so long a time has passed, although the Brim River is very broad and deep now, it is quite possible the river was very narrow and easy to cross then. Even the river was the same deep and broad, boat is not the unique tool to cross the river, and bridge is also an alternative choice. What's more, hardly can the arguer equate no evidence as no possibility. After all, prehistoric era is too distant for archaeologists to study. Perhaps Paleans did have boats but the evidences were ruined. Without considering and ruling out all these possibilities, the conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Palea can not hold water.

Secondly, boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not necessary for people to carry baskets to Lithos. A small boat is enough for people to achieve Lithos with baskets. So the fact boats with large capacity were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared carries no more weight to the conclusion.

Thirdly, even Palean people can not cross the river. The arguer neglects another possibility-people in Lithos may cross the river to Palea. The arguer provides no information about the people in Lithos. It is quite possible people in Lithos had arrived the Palea and taken such a basket back. Without give adequate responds to this question, I will suspend to convince the conclusion.

Fourthly, it is ridiculous for arguer to assume that as Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small games, there is no need for Paleans to cross the river. For example, Paleans needed to exchange baskets for other materials with people in Lithos. Unless the arguer can rule out this possibility, the conclusion will be unconvincing.

Finally, the people after Palean people disappeared in Palea are also possible take such baskets to Lithos.


To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the arguer has to prove that the Brim River was very deep and broad then and no bridge existed. Meanwhile, the arguer also needs to rule out the possibility that people never reached Palea. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer should substantiate that there are no other needs for Paleans to cross the river. Furthermore, confirm evidences to prove that Paleans had no boats are also essential.

haodongkingUID: 2101796

自己顶一个,既然这么多人写,大家相互改一下啊,不然同主题的意义就大打折扣了啊

翦瞳UID: 184872

好啊，等我一下，参考一下你的。

haodongkingUID: 2101796

我已经帮你改了，呵呵

86390216UID: 2102486

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Woven baskets which were also discovered in Lithos were not unique to Palea. To prove this recommendation,  the arguer points out that as Brim River is very deep and broad, the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat while no evidence proves that the Paleans had boats. Meanwhile boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, the arguer also points out that since Palea are full of nuts, berries and small game, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river. At first glance, the recommendation is specific and convincing. Close scrutiny to each of these factors, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.第一段比后面任何一段都长 这样不知道好不好 可能不大好啊 唉 我也很迷惑

First of all, the arguer provides no information about the Brim River in prehistoric time. Consider so long a time has passed, although the Brim River is very broad and deep now, it is quite possible the river was very narrow and easy to cross then. Even the river was the same deep and broad, boat is not the unique tool to cross the river, and bridge is also an alternative choice. What's more, hardly can the arguer equate no evidence as no possibility. After all, prehistoric era is too distant for archaeologists to study. Perhaps Paleans did have boats but the evidences were ruined. Without considering and ruling out all these possibilities, the conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Palea can not hold water.  hold water有这样的表达吗??

Secondly, boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not necessary for people to carry baskets to Lithos. A small boat is enough for people to achieve Lithos with baskets. So the fact boats with large capacity were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared carries no more weight to the conclusion.

Thirdly, even Palean people can not cross the river. The arguer neglects another possibility-people in Lithos may cross the river to Palea. The arguer provides no information about the people in Lithos. It is quite possible people in Lithos had arrived the Palea and taken such a basket back. Without give adequate responds to this question, I will suspend to convince the conclusion.

Fourthly, it is ridiculous for arguer to assume that as Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small games, there is no need for Paleans to cross the river. For example, Paleans needed to exchange baskets for other materials with people in Lithos.呵呵 这个假释的理由比我找的要好 我就是一时找补出什么理由  Unless the arguer can rule out this possibility, the conclusion will be unconvincing.

Finally, the people after Palean people disappeared in Palea are also possible take such baskets to Lithos.就这样一句话一段的好像很少见啊

To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the arguer has to prove that the Brim River was very deep and broad then and no bridge existed. Meanwhile, the arguer also needs to rule out the possibility that people never reached Palea. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer should substantiate that there are no other needs for Paleans to cross the river. Furthermore, confirm evidences to prove that Paleans had no boats are also essential. 很典型的模板结尾了 昨天有网友推荐我看了IMONG的三篇文章 把模板批得一无是处 我今天连怎么结尾都不知道了 唉
总体来说楼主写得还是不错的了 点都找得很全 但是不是我想象中的很牛的逻辑论证 我自己也做不到 刚沉沉睡了四个小时起来 太累了 真是个体力活 唉唉

翦瞳UID: 184872

谢啦，刚才吃饭了，看了头文字D,偷懒了，马上来！

haodongkingUID: 2101796

谢谢86390216的评改，hold water新东方的老师经常用，应该没问题
另外你能不能把你说的那几篇imong的文章连接给我，让我也学习一下

翦瞳UID: 184872

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Woven baskets which were also discovered in Lithos were not unique to Palea. To prove this recommendation,  the arguer points out that as Brim River is very deep and broad, the ancient Paleans could only have crossed [直接用过去完成时不好吧? 我觉得用have to cross，呵呵，不一定对] it by boat while no evidence proves that the Paleans had boats. Meanwhile boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, the arguer also points out that since Palea are full of nuts, berries and small game, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river. At first glance, the recommendation is specific and convincing. Close scrutiny to each of these factors, however, reveals that none of them lends credible support to the recommendation.这是很好用的句子。很实用。
First of all, the arguer provides no information about the Brim River in prehistoric time. Considering so long a time has passed, although the Brim River is very broad and deep now, it is quite possible the river was very narrow and easy to cross then. Even if the river was the same deep and broad, boat is not the unique tool to cross the river, and bridge is also an alternative choice. What's more, hardly can the arguer equate no evidence as no possibility. After all, prehistoric era is too distant for archaeologists to study. Perhaps Paleans did have boats but the evidences were ruined. Without considering and ruling out all these possibilities, the conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Palea can not hold water.

Secondly, boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not necessary for people to carry baskets to Lithos. A small boat is [was]enough for people to achieve Lithos with baskets. So the fact boats with large capacity were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared carries no more weight to the conclusion. 这句话有一点别扭,是不是可以展开一些？
Thirdly, even Palean people can not cross the river. The arguer neglects another possibility-people in Lithos may cross the river to Palea. The arguer provides no information about the people in Lithos. It is quite possible people in Lithos had arrived the Palea and taken such a basket back. Without give giving adequate responds to this question, I will suspend to convince the conclusion.

Fourthly, it is ridiculous for arguer to assume that as Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small games, there is no need for Paleans to cross the river. For example, Paleans needed to exchange baskets for other materials with people in Lithos. Unless the arguer can rule out this possibility, the conclusion will be unconvincing.

Finally, the people after Palean people disappeared in Palea are also possible take such baskets to Lithos.  想问一下老版主们，可不可以提出很多逻辑错误，适当展开一些，一些只是提出来？        


To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the arguer has to prove that the Brim River was very deep and broad then and no bridge existed. Meanwhile, the arguer also needs to rule out the possibility that people never reached Palea. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer should substantiate that there are no other needs for Paleans to cross the river. Furthermore, confirm evidences to prove that Paleans had no boats are also essential. 这句话可能引起歧义

想到的逻辑错误很多，句子有一些简单。不知道有的不展开可不可以，有待求证。有证据说，句子简单没关系，逻辑好就行。