argument33 [smile-B组]第三次作业, 大家不吝赐教！

applehattieUID: 2195344

33.The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."
1．        没有足够的证据表明骨头中含的金属元素和人从幼年以后移居到新的地方有必然的联系，即便是，这些人就一定是壶的主人吗？他们也许是商人也许当时这些含金属元素的食物很普遍，许多地方的人都吃，或许还有其他能够导致骨头内的金属含量升高，
2．        仅仅凭在几个遗址发现的高含量金属的骨头，并不能表示这些壶就是由移居而流传的，量太少不能表示普遍性，还有缺乏这个骨头的详细信息，仅仅知道含有高金属量是远远不够的，这些骨头也许就是当地人的，根本不是移居的人。
3．        还有其他的可能导致壶的分散，不光是一个地方的人都会制作这种壶，许多地方的人都会，被海水冲散，等

The argument presented above is neither sound nor persuasive. For the reason that the author fails to determine the actual correlation between the uncovered evidences, also he should consider other circumstances cause the pots scattered over a wide area.

In the first place, it is questionable to get conclusion that the bones showed high levels of a certain metallic element have necessary connection with the people who migrated to a new place after childhood. By providing the dubious evidence that the various foods which contain high levels of metallic element are strongly associated with the people who migrated, the author indicates that if the people whose bones have high levels of metallic element then they must be migrants. Perhaps there are other paths for the people to reach a high metallic levels in bodies that have not been found by archaeologists yet, and maybe the foods included so many metallic element were very popular not only with the people who own the pots but also with the people who have noting to do with the pots those days, and almost everyone take them as routine foods. So we do not understand the real relationship between the bones of high levels metallic element and the people who migrate after childhood.

Another significant fallacy this argument above suffers from is that there is no cause and effect relationship between many of bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element and the conclusion that the pots were spread by migration. At the beginning of the passage the author mentions that the distinct pots are scattering over a wide area, so finding the high levels metallic element at a few sites do not necessarily mean the universalism of this discovery. In other words, the small number of the sites which archaeologists find the bones and the pots is not giving us sufficient information that the pots were carried there by migrants. Maybe after careful checking of the archaeologists these bones are not even in the same period with the pots, maybe these bones come from other people just like the businessman , not the migrants.

However, the author fails to consider other possibilities to cause the spread of the pots. Perhaps the pots were merged by seawater, and they flowed with the water to many other places. If the artists who created the distinctive pots were very famous, and their contemporaries are very fond of this artwork, so there would be a host of people to learn the skills from these artists, and the pots are spread everywhere.

In sum, using the dubious evidences and the plausible relation between them this argument cannot persuade us that the spread of the pots was caused by the migration. If the passage includes the given factors discussed above, it must be very thorough and adequate.

[ 本帖最后由 applehattie 于 2006-7-29 20:15 编辑 ]

xinxinwUID: 2144273

The argument presented above is neither sound nor persuasive. For the reason that the author fails to determine the actual correlation between the uncovered evidences, also he should consider other circumstances cause the pots scattered over a wide area.

In the first place, it is questionable to get conclusion that the bones showed high levels of a certain metallic element have necessary connection with the people who migrated to a new place after childhood. By providing the dubious evidence that the various foods which contain high levels of metallic element are strongly associated with the people who migrated, the author indicates that if the people whose bones have high levels of metallic element then they must be migrants.重复作者的论据居然占了本段的一半篇幅 Perhaps there are other paths for the people to reach a high metallic levels in bodies that have not been found by archaeologists yet, and maybe the foods included so many metallic element were very popular not only with the people who own the pots but also with the people who have noting to do with the pots those days, and almost everyone take them as routine foods. So we do not understand the real relationship between the bones of high levels metallic element and the people who migrate after childhood.

Another significant fallacy this argument above suffers from is that there is no cause and effect relationship between many of bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element and the conclusion that the pots were spread by migration. At the beginning of the passage the author mentions that the distinct pots are scattering over a wide area, so finding the high levels metallic element at a few sites do not necessarily mean the universalism of this discovery. In other words, the small number of the sites which archaeologists find the bones and the pots is not giving us sufficient information that the pots were carried there by migrants. Maybe after careful checking of the archaeologists these bones are not even in the same period with the pots, maybe these bones come from other people just like the businessman , not the migrants.

However, the author fails to consider other possibilities to cause the spread of the pots. Perhaps the pots were merged by seawater, and they flowed with the water to many other places. If the artists who created the distinctive pots were very famous, and their contemporaries are very fond of this artwork, so there would be a host of people to learn the skills from these artists, and the pots are spread everywhere.少总结

In sum, using the dubious evidences and the plausible relation between them this argument cannot persuade us that the spread of the pots was caused by the migration. If the passage includes the given factors discussed above, it must be very thorough and adequate.

重复的内容太多了，作了很多无用功。提纲还是不错的，所以逻辑上没什么问题

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

这次改你的A吧，看了vitaminxixi给的链接资料，感觉有长进"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."
1．        没有足够的证据表明骨头中含的金属元素和人从幼年以后移居到新的地方有必然的联系，即便是，这些人就一定是壶的主人吗？他们也许是商人也许当时这些含金属元素的食物很普遍，许多地方的人都吃，或许还有其他能够导致骨头内的金属含量升高，
2．        仅仅凭在几个遗址发现的高含量金属的骨头，并不能表示这些壶就是由移居而流传的，量太少不能表示普遍性，还有缺乏这个骨头的详细信息，仅仅知道含有高金属量是远远不够的，这些骨头也许就是当地人的，根本不是移居的人。
3．        还有其他的可能导致壶的分散，不光是一个地方的人都会制作这种壶，许多地方的人都会，被海水冲散，等

The argument presented above is neither sound nor persuasive. For the reason that the author fails to determine the actual correlation between the uncovered evidences, also he should consider other circumstances [-that may-] cause the pots scattered over a wide area.

In the first place, it is questionable to get conclusion that the bones showed high levels of a certain metallic element have necessary connection with the people who migrated to a new place after childhood. By providing the dubious evidence that the various foods which contain high levels of metallic element are strongly associated with the people who migrated, the author indicates that if the people whose bones have high levels of metallic element [，] then they must be migrants. Perhaps there are other paths for the people to reach a high metallic levels in bodies [reach a high metallic levels in bodies --reach a high  levels metallic bones ] that have not been found by archaeologists yet, and maybe the foods included [-ed--ing] so many metallic element were very popular not only with the people who own the pots but also with the people who have noting to do with the pots those days, and almost everyone take them as routine foods. So we do not understand the real relationship between the bones of high levels metallic element and the people who migrate after childhood.[这段主要问题xinxinw讲了我就不说了]
Another significant fallacy this argument above suffers from is that there is no cause and effect relationship between many of bones found near the pots at a few sites showed  high levels of the metallic element and the conclusion that the pots were spread by migration. [Another significant fallacy,  from which this argument above suffers,  is that there is no cause and effect relationship between many of high levels metallic bones found near the pots at a few sites and the conclusion that the pots  were spreaded by migration. ] At the beginning of the passage the author mentions that the distinct pots are scattering over a wide area, so finding the high levels metallic element at a few sites do not necessarily mean the universalism of this discovery. In other words, the small number of the sites which archaeologists find the bones and the pots is not giving us sufficient information that the pots were carried there by migrants. Maybe after careful checking of the archaeologists these bones are not even in the same period with the pots, maybe these bones come from other people just like the businessman , not the migrants.

However, the author fails to consider other possibilities to cause the spread of the pots. Perhaps the pots were merged [merged?] by seawater, and they flowed with the water to many other places. If the artists who created the distinctive pots were very famous, and their contemporaries are very fond of this artwork, so there would be a host of people to learn the skills from these artists, and the pots are spread everywhere.

In sum, using the dubious evidences and the plausible relation between them [,] this argument cannot persuade us that the spread of the pots was caused by the migration. If the passage includes the given factors discussed above, it must be very thorough and adequate.


这次写的挺好，比我的好，句式和词汇问题大家都很多慢慢来吧，下面 谈一点个人感想吧，个人意见哈

1 这篇文章首先给出，立论前提：移民或贸易是两个导致瓷器分布全世界的原因，然后给出论据分析这个前提中哪两个情况成立， 最后结论是移民导致瓷器分布， 所以逻辑链应该是：

少量遗址骨头含金，maker吃含金食物-----〉前提（移民或贸易）------〉移民导致瓷器分布

2 你大部分精力花在证明  ‘少量遗址骨头含金，maker吃含金食物-----〉前提（移民）’ ，只第四段简单提了一下其他可能的原因导致瓷器分布。

3 我个人觉着精力主要应花在第四段（提到第一段）（即主要关注前提本身有问题，而不是试图证明论据和前提间的推论有问题），提出可能有其他原因比如，若果海水冲散，战争掠夺等导致瓷器分布的可能性存在，这样结论就不成立了；不用再花大精力证明头骨是谁的啦。

4 如果想你那样写，你最后的攻击无非就是“一个不一定确实存在的[前提]，不能推导到那样的结论”，而如照我说的写，则是“即便[前提]是完全正确的，我也不能得到那样的结论”。

[ 本帖最后由 zhy5186612 于 2006-7-28 00:26 编辑 ]