Argument37 欢迎大家来拍，下周二就考了

一月一号UID: 2148376

今天头晕晕的，连着写到后面都不行了….
TOPIC: ARGUMENT37 - 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.
WORDS: 505          TIME: 0:30:00 +10分         DATE: 2006-12-23

The argument above is cogent as it stands. Though the discovery of the Palean basket seems at the first glance is a evidence for the author's conclusion, there are still more evidence and research the author should provide to convince us that the baskets were made by ancient people in the Lithos and thus the baskets were not unique to Palea.

After all, the author makes the conclusion entirely based on the assumption that if the baskets were found in the Lithos and thus it was made by people there. However, there is no direct evidence to justify this.

First, the arguer dose not provide any information about when the basket was made that were found in Lithos. Whether this basket was made by the people after the prehistoric time? Maybe there was some artist favored the distinctive pattern of the Palean basket and thus made a facsimile of the basket. Thus a more comprehensive research result should be done to find out the exact time of fabrication of this basket before we draw our conclusion.

Second, given that this basket was made by prehistoric people as the author assumes, the deep and broad river apart from the Palean and Lithos could not be a enough evidence to identify that there were no communications between these two places. Though people cannot find boats in Palean, it is likely that there may be boats in Lithos. However, there is no information about this in the argument. Besides, though the large boats only developed thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared; there is no indication that only large boats can cross the Brim River. Maybe a just small boat can help few people to communicate with each other. Further, the notion that there was no need for people across river is groundless since people would also communicate with each other even there are enough food supply around them. Prehistoric people may do some trade and business with each other and thus it is highly possible that this unique basket to Palean was brought to Lithos.

At last, the author also fails to take into account the possibility that even if people cannot communicate in the prehistoric time then, it dose not follow that people after them cannot bring this basket to Lithos. The author dose not figure out what happened during that long time after the disappearance of Palean and Lithos. It is at least likely that people after them would brought this basket to Lithos. To better evaluate this possibility, there must more material to support that people in Lithos of that time had the necessary skills to develop this kind basket. Besides, only one basket is not enough to indicate the possibility that prehistoric people in Lithos could make this kind of basket. If so, there maybe more baskets of this kind would be found. Without these evidence, the conclusion is too brief and too haste.

In sum, this argument lacks credibility in that there are not sufficient evidences and the analysis is illogical.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

The argument above is cogent(为什么是合理的...) as it stands. Though the discovery of the Palean basket seems at the first glance is a(an) evidence for the author's conclusion, there are still more evidence and research the author should provide to convince us that the baskets were made by ancient people in the Lithos and thus the baskets were not unique to Palea.(不太清楚你这个开头方式是从哪看来的,感觉上没什么力度,特别是though....这种转折对转折之后的内容的强调作用并不明显, 而且你只说了at the first glance是合理的,没说careful scrutiny会让文章变得不可信, 这样的让步是很危险的, 而且对于作者应该做什么这种建议在你没指出作者的错误前是缺乏依据的, 所以一般这种内容都是写在结尾段里) After all (为什么用的语气词给我感觉都是想赞同作者|||after all不是毕竟么), the author makes the conclusion entirely based on the assumption that if the baskets were found in the Lithos and thus it was made by people there(前后不一致). However, there is no direct evidence to justify this. First, the arguer dose not provide any information about when the basket was made that were found in Lithos.(没有提出时间得这一点怎么能破坏作者的结论了? 应该直接指出文章的错误) Whether this basket was(前面是复数,另外特殊疑问句是特殊疑问词+助动词+主语+谓语哦, 别写多从句就忘掉了) made by the people after the prehistoric time? Maybe there was some artist favored the distinctive pattern of the Palean basket and thus made a facsimile of the basket.(艺术家的仿制品不是原品吧? ) Thus a more comprehensive research result should be done to find out the exact time of fabrication of this basket before we draw our conclusion.(鉴定古董的话时间只是一个因素,  拿出来单独当攻击点写是很难的, 因为阿狗是在攻击作者的逻辑错误而不是在帮他鉴定古董. 把视野限制得太小容易攻击偏) Second, given that this basket was made by prehistoric people as the author assumes, the deep and broad river apart from the Palean and Lithos could not be a (an) enough evidence to identify that there were no communications between these two places. Though people cannot find boats in Palean, it is likely that there may be boats in Lithos. However, there is no information about this in the argument.(And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared 我觉得这句话说的并不是P一个地方的情况, 你觉得呢?). Besides, though the large boats only developed thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared; there is no indication that only large boats can cross the Brim River. Maybe a just small boat can help few people to communicate with each other. Further, the notion that there was no need for people across river is groundless since people would also communicate with each other even there are enough food supply around them. Prehistoric people may do some trade and business with each other and thus it is highly possible that this unique basket to Palean was brought to Lithos. At last, the author also fails to take into account the possibility that even if people cannot communicate in the prehistoric time then, it dose (does) not follow that people after them cannot bring this basket to Lithos. The author dose not figure out what happened during that long time after the disappearance of Palean and Lithos. It is at least likely that people after them would brought this basket to Lithos. To better evaluate this possibility, there must more material to support that people in Lithos of that time had the necessary skills to develop this kind basket. (感觉后面的部分可以单拿出来写一个论点) Besides, only one basket is not enough to indicate the possibility that prehistoric people in Lithos could make this kind of basket. If so, there maybe more baskets of this kind would be found. Without these evidence, the conclusion is too brief and too haste. In sum, this argument lacks credibility in that there are not sufficient evidences and the analysis is illogical.

(总体的感觉是开头结尾不太合理, 可能是想尝试信的结构吧, 个人看来不是很成功. 内容方面不错, 不过拼写错误不少, 元音前面的不定惯词变形和does老出错, 考试的时候注意下. 看下来的确有点头晕, 感觉你太强调避免复述原题了, 但我觉得最起码应该把作者的主论点: the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea写出来, 否则看的人也不知道你在攻击身话题. 一一是在鼎均考么? 我明天去看考场....周二加油啊:kiss: )