argument33

PrudenceUID: 2286952

Argument 33The 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.'

The argument is well-presented, however, suffers from several flaws. First, the author commits a fallacy about correlation. Besides, several unreasonable assumptions are employed. I will discuss each of them in turn.

In the first place, the argument relies on an unreasonable assumption that these people who have high levels of a certain metallic element are those before they mitigated here they lived in a same place, only where existed some kinds of food which provided this certain metallic element. However, maybe this metallic element’s accumulation had something to do with the eating habit, or other habits such as smocking facilitated the accumulation of this metallic element, in these respects, they didn’t need to mitigate. Without eliminating this or other possibilities, the arguer renders this argument unconvincing at all.

Even if these people whose bones had this certain metallic element mitigated here, no evidence provided to substantiate that they were the owners of pots. Maybe they were slaves of those whose bones don’t have this element, and be bought here. They had nothing except their workforce. Additionally, another possibility renders this argument unpersuasive completely; that is, the pots and the bones do not belong to the same period. Accordingly, it is presumptuous to judge the pots were spread by migration, not trade.

Even though what aforementioned can be proved, it is possible that they bought pots in the bazaar nearby after they mitigated here. And maybe very soon the archaeologists will find a site where the pots were made and another site where the pots were traded just near these sites bones are found. In that case, the author fails to substantiate the argument completely.

Thirdly, there is another possibility that the pots were neither spread by migration, nor trade. Maybe at that time, the skill of making pots was known universal, and people usually made pots by themselves. Thus, no people traded pots. Without excluding this possibility, the argument is arguable and unconvincing.

In conclusion, this argument is too specious to persuasive. In order to support it, the author should further supply sufficient evidence rather than assumptions.

PrudenceUID: 2286952

up