smile-A作业三补交argument33，史前人类陶壶那个，请指教!

猫猫寿司UID: 2219543

Argu33
史前人类的陶壶
Outline:
1.        the study concerning the link between high level of certain metallic element in various food and people who migrated which the argument partially rests on lacks of detailed information as to make it reliable, and the elements in food does not equates that in bones.
2.        arguer’s assumption that people’s skeleton were found near the pots shows they carried them is groundless
3.        the conclusion is a false dilemma, people in different areas can master the method of making the pots.
Basing on the study showing a correlation between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various food and people who migrated to a new place after childhood, and coupled with the discovery of bones high in this kind of metallic element near the pots at a few sites, the arguer made the conclusion that the distinctive pots’ wide spread is due to migration. However, the lack of information in the study, hasty generalization, selective samples and a false dilemma leave this argument open to doubt.

In the first place, the study concerning the link between high level of certain metallic element in various food and the people who migrated which served as a evidence to show the bones found near pots belong to those migrated people is unwarranted due to the absence of detailed information. The arguer fails to provide us any data or specific study procedure to illustrate the link, such as the random sampling, the proportion of metallic element contained in various foods and in which aspect the element affected the migrated people. Without these precise information, the evidence lends no strong, if any, support to the point the arguer makes. Besides, even if there is a link between the two, the speaker makes a gratuitous assumption equating the certain metallic elements in various foods to that found in the bones, which does not take other alternatives into consideration. The metallic element in foods may not be absorbed by people and then entered their bones, and the element in their bones might come from other channels such as the water or even some unknown radiations. Before ruling out the possibilities above, I can not be convinced by the arguer that skeleton found near pots are those of migrants.

Secondly, the arguer groundlessly assumes that the bones found near the pots is an indication that the bone’s owners carried the pots, on which the conclusion pots were spread by migration relied on. No evidence, however, is showed to us that bones’ owners and pots’ owners are the same group of people. There is a good chance that those pots had already been buried under earth long before those people were, thus those people might even have never seen the pots, or vice versa. Further more, in order to show a link between the pots and migrated people in general, we should be presented with the samples in most of, if not all, the sites where the pots and bones have been unearthed, whereas the arguer only provides us that in a few sites. These selective samples could not assure the reliability of the evidence, consequently, it does not lend any strong support to the conclusion.

Moreover, making the conclusion that the pots were spread by migration, not trade without ruling out other possible answers to this spread, the arguer convicts false dilemma. While we take other possibilities into consideration, such as people in different areas all mastered the method to produce this kind of distinctively shaped ceramic pots, or people did migrate, but they carried the way to make pots instead of the pots themselves. Also migration and trade are not mutually exclusive, they could occur at the same time. Thus, before a comprehensive analysis about the issue, it is impossible to generalize hastily that the pots were spread by migration, not trade.

In conclusion, to make the argument more cogent, the arguer should provide us with more precise information concerning the study and take all the possibilities into consideration.
时间：45分钟
字数：583
不说了……狂汗……

xinxinwUID: 2144273

Basing on the study showing a correlation between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various food and people who migrated to a new place after childhood, and coupled with the discovery of bones high in this kind of metallic element near the pots at a few sites, the arguer made the conclusion that the distinctive pots’ wide spread is due to migration. However, the lack of information in the study, hasty generalization, selective samples and a false dilemma leave this argument open to doubt.

In the first place, the study concerning the link between high level of certain metallic element in various food and the people who migrated which served as a evidence to show the bones found near pots belong to those migrated people is unwarranted due to the absence of detailed information. The arguer fails to provide us any data or specific study procedure to illustrate the link, such as the random sampling, the proportion of metallic element contained in various foods and in which aspect the element affected the migrated people. Without these precise information, the evidence lends no strong, if any, support to the point the arguer makes. Besides, even if there is a link between the two, the speaker makes a gratuitous assumption equating the certain metallic elements in various foods to that found in the bones, which does not take other alternatives into consideration. The metallic element in foods may not be absorbed by people and then entered their bones, and the element in their bones might come from other channels such as the water or even some unknown radiations. Before ruling out the possibilities above, I can not be convinced by the arguer that skeleton found near pots are those of migrants.

Secondly, the arguer groundlessly assumes that the bones found near the pots is an indication that the bone’s owners carried the pots, on which the conclusion pots were spread by migration relied on. No evidence, however, is showed to us that bones’ owners and pots’ owners are the same group of people. There is a good chance that those pots had already been buried under earth long before those people were, thus those people might even have never seen the pots, or vice versa. Further more, in order to show a link between the pots and migrated people in general, we should be presented with the samples in most of, if not all, the sites where the pots and bones have been unearthed, whereas the arguer only provides us that in a few sites. These selective samples could not assure the reliability of the evidence, consequently, it does not lend any strong support to the conclusion.

Moreover, making the conclusion that the pots were spread by migration, not trade without ruling out other possible answers to this spread, the arguer convicts false dilemma. While we take other possibilities into consideration, such as people in different areas all mastered the method to produce this kind of distinctively shaped ceramic pots, or people did migrate, but they carried the way to make pots instead of the pots themselves. Also migration and trade are not mutually exclusive, they could occur at the same time. Thus, before a comprehensive analysis about the issue, it is impossible to generalize hastily that the pots were spread by migration, not trade.

In conclusion, to make the argument more cogent, the arguer should provide us with more precise information concerning the study and take all the possibilities into consideration.

这个false dilemma还有争议，我觉得是整个推理的基础，应该放在前面攻击