argu33 [Smile－B组]第三次作业

vitaminxixiUID: 2159890

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 invarious 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."

简要翻译：
陶器是移民传播的，而不是贸易。因为研究表明各种食物里某种特定金属的高含量会一直跟随童年后移民到新地方的人，而在一些这样的陶器旁发现了很多骨头里这种金属元素的含量都很高。

提纲：

1。发现有问题。一些遗址不具有代表性/遗址附近的骨骼不一定是陶器造者的
2。分析有问题。食物中技术含量高不代表骨骼中含量高/不一定是成年后才移居
3。疑问有问题。可能既有移民又有贸易


  In this argument, the author draw a conclusion that the pots spread by migration but not trade lead to the discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area. This conclusion is based on a analysis that  high levels of a certain metallic element are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood, and the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. After considering in earnest, I find that the arguer misses some important factors and there are some logic flaws during the reasoning process.
  Many bones with high levels of the metallic element around the pots don't necessarily imply that the pots are belong to the bones' host. The author provide no evidence to rule out the possibility that the sites were commercial central, so either migrators or local people may gather these place to change for there necessity of life. Without providing sufficient evidence to show that the pots are carried by migrators who have weathering to the bones nearby, we can't accept the conclusion completely. What's more, the finding is only at few sites, which is such a weak evidence that can't represent sites scattered over a wide area where distinctively shaped ceramic pots are discovered.
  The analysis also can't lend effective support to induce the conclusion that the pots spread by migration but not trade. For one thing, the analysis states that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people. On this case, the arguer simply equates the component in various foods with in bones of people who eat them. There is no clue that indicate the relationship between the two distinct things. For another, the analysis only show the phenomena happened on people who migrated to a new place after childhood, even it is true that the bones' component can reflect whether they migrated or not after they are adult, we still can assume that some of the makers are mitigated when they are children with their families. Lacking some special information about the situation of the migrated people, it is impossible to judge if the pots spread by migration or trade.
  Finally, the arguer believe that the pots were spread by trade or by makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them. Nevertheless, there still exist other choice that the author have ignored. Perhaps the pots are both spread by trade and by makers migrated to the various sites which may result to the distinctively shaped ceramic pots discovered at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area.
  In conclusion, the argument that the pots spread by migration but not trade is incredible based on the evidence. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must show that the bones belong to the people who migrated from other place. The speaker must also provide other factors that determine whether the high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are embodied in all people's bones who migrated when any period of their life. Finally, to get a comprehensive conclusion the arguer should consider if the pots are both spread by trade and by makers migrated to the various sites.

dychangfengUID: 2216148

In this argument, the author draw（s) a conclusion that the pots (were) spread by migration but not trade lead to the discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area. (整句话有语法问题）This conclusion is based on a analysis that  high levels of a certain metallic element are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood, and the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. After considering in earnest, I find that the arguer misses some important factors and there are some logic flaws during the reasoning process.
  Many bones with high levels of the metallic element around the pots don't necessarily imply that the pots are belong to the bones' host. The author provide no evidence to rule out the possibility that the sites were commercial central, so either migrators or local people may gather （in）these place to change for there necessity of life. Without providing sufficient evidence to show that the pots are carried by migrators who have weathering to the bones nearby, we can't accept the conclusion completely. What's more, the finding is only at few sites, which is such a weak evidence that can't represent sites scattered over a wide area where distinctively shaped ceramic pots are discovered.(个人认为最好在这段指出结论的前提不存在，即骨头与罐子不一定有必然联系，而不是只是指出这些地方有是集市的可能，这样更有说服力）  The analysis also can't lend effective support to induce the conclusion that the pots spread by migration but not trade. For one thing, the analysis states that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people. (这个不是攻击点吧，食物中的元素在骨骼里有体现，这该没有疑问）On this case, the arguer simply equates the component in various foods with in bones of people who eat them. There is no clue that indicate the relationship between the two distinct things. For another, the analysis only show the phenomena happened on people who migrated to a new place after childhood, even it is true that the bones' component can reflect whether they migrated or not after they are adult, we still can assume that some of the makers are mitigated when they are children with their families. Lacking some special information about the situation of the migrated people, it is impossible to judge if the pots spread by migration or trade.（这段比较乱，可以看出作者是想证明结论的论据不存在，即高含量的元素与结论没有必然联系，但思路有点乱，可以）  Finally, the arguer believe that the pots were spread by trade or by makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them. Nevertheless, there still exist other choice that the author have ignored. Perhaps the pots are both spread by trade and by makers migrated to the various sites which may result to the distinctively shaped ceramic pots discovered at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area.
  In conclusion, the argument that the pots spread by migration but not trade is incredible based on the evidence. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must show that the bones belong to the people who migrated from other place. The speaker must also provide other factors that determine whether the high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are embodied in all people's bones who migrated when any period of their life. Finally, to get a comprehensive conclusion the arguer should consider if the pots are both spread by trade and by makers migrated to the various sites.
整体而言，作者语言挺好的，提纲也列的很好，只是文章中没有很好体现出来，
我是看了你连接的帖子才对这个题有个新的认识，多谢哦
可以看看smiles11发的第三次作业的帖子，有个讨论
也欢迎排砖:lol

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

"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 invarious 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."

简要翻译：
陶器是移民传播的，而不是贸易。因为研究表明各种食物里某种特定金属的高含量会一直跟随童年后移民到新地方的人，而在一些这样的陶器旁发现了很多骨头里这种金属元素的含量都很高。

提纲：

1。发现有问题。一些遗址不具有代表性/遗址附近的骨骼不一定是陶器造者的
2。分析有问题。食物中技术含量高不代表骨骼中含量高/不一定是成年后才移居
3。疑问有问题。可能既有移民又有贸易


  In this argument, the author draw a conclusion that the pots spread by migration but not trade lead to the discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area. This conclusion is based on a analysis that  high levels of a certain metallic element are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood, and the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. After considering in earnest, I find that the arguer misses some important factors and there are some logic flaws during the reasoning process.
  Many bones with high levels of the metallic element around the pots don't necessarily imply that the pots are belong to the bones' host. The author provide no evidence to rule out the possibility that the sites were commercial central, so either migrators or local people may gather these place to change for there necessity of life. Without providing sufficient evidence to show that the pots are carried by migrators who have weathering to the bones nearby, we can't accept the conclusion completely. What's more, the finding is only at few sites, which is such a weak evidence that can't represent sites scattered over a wide area where distinctively shaped ceramic pots are discovered.
  The analysis also can't lend effective support to induce the conclusion that the pots spread by migration but not trade. For one thing, the analysis states that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people. On this case, the arguer simply equates the component in various foods with in bones of people who eat them. There is no clue that indicate the relationship between the two distinct things. For another, the analysis only show the phenomena happened on people who migrated to a new place after childhood, even it is true that the bones' component can reflect whether they migrated or not after they are adult, we still can assume that some of the makers are mitigated when they are children with their families. Lacking some special information about the situation of the migrated people, it is impossible to judge if the pots spread by migration or trade.
  Finally, the arguer believe that the pots were spread by trade or by makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them. Nevertheless, there still exist other choice that the author have ignored. Perhaps the pots are both spread by trade and by makers migrated to the various sites which may result to the distinctively shaped ceramic pots discovered at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area.
  In conclusion, the argument that the pots spread by migration but not trade is incredible based on the evidence. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must show that the bones belong to the people who migrated from other place. The speaker must also provide other factors that determine whether the high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are embodied in all people's bones who migrated when any period of their life. Finally, to get a comprehensive conclusion the arguer should consider if the pots are both spread by trade and by makers migrated to the various sites.
首先谢谢了LZ提供的A的资料链接，受教啦
你很细心，句式和词汇比我都好，我就不用心去挑剔了，价值不大。说一下关于这个A的个人意见吧。
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）’ ，只第四段提了一下可能移民和贸易两者共同导致瓷器分布。
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”。
我也没完全按我说的写，看了你给的资料才想到上面的东西，不对请见谅。