argument33 -anan

zsa1983UID: 2299564

Argument33  第15篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒     314 words
从2007年3月10日11时12分到2007年3月10日11时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. So I cannot agree with the speaker's assertion that the ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area were spread by migration, not trade.

The threshold problem in the argument is that the analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons is not rational at all that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Some assumptions should be cited before the analysis can be shown. First, only through migrating to a new place after childhood, can people gain various foods. Second, it must be that there are high levels of a certain metallic element in all kinds of foods. In other words, it will not exist that some foods are not in high levels of the metallic element. Third, if high levels of a certain metallic element are contained in various foods, the people surely can associate such element. However, in the analysis, any evidence can be found to support such assumptions. Lacking the rational evidence, perhaps only eat one kinds of food also can associate this element. or even more foods are eaten, still people are not with high levels of the metallic element. In that matter, it is extremely possible that even if by eating various foods, people will have high levels of such element, people can gain various foods by many ways besides migrating. Therefore, without convincing evidence, I could not give my belief to such analysis.

Another point worth considering is that the relationship between the bones found near the posts at a few sites and the pots are greatly vague. There is no evidence which can prove that the pots are brought by these people with the bones. It is perhaps that the people with the bones really had migrated, but the pots were own and brought by other people who traded. If so, the assertion will be of little persuade.

The third problem involves the fact that there are many possibilities of how the pots were spread, but, in the report, only two cases were considered. Perhaps the pots are nether by migrating nor trading, but the residents of such place also have such skill to make the pots. Without excluding such possibility, how can the speaker assert that the pots were spread by migration, not trade?

In sum, the speaker cannot justify his voting assertion on basis of such scant evidence. To bolster his assertion, the speaker should provide convincing evidence that the analysis is right at any matter and the relationship between the bones and pots truly exist. To better evaluate this assertion, I would need to know whether there are other possibilities that can cause such phenomena.

eddie23508okUID: 2281260

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. So I cannot agree with the speaker's assertion that the ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area were spread by migration, not trade.

The threshold problem in the argument is that the analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons is not rational at all that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. (句子太长了，可否分一下段落呢？便于阅读，考官可能会给高分哦！) Some assumptions should be cited before the analysis can be shown. First, only through migrating to a new place after childhood, can people gain various foods. Second, it must be that there are high levels of a certain metallic element in all kinds of foods. In other words, it will not exist that some foods are not in high levels of the metallic element. Third, if high levels of a certain metallic element are contained in various foods, the people surely can associate such element. However, in the analysis, any evidence can be found to support such assumptions. Lacking the rational evidence, perhaps only eat one kinds of food also can associate this element. or even more foods are eaten, still people are not with high levels of the metallic element. In that matter, it is extremely possible that even if by eating various foods, people will have high levels of such element, people can gain various foods by many ways besides migrating. (这几句话读起来让我感觉有点不知所云) Therefore, without convincing evidence, I could not give my belief to such analysis.

Another point worth considering is that the relationship between the bones found near the posts at a few sites and the pots are greatly vague. There is no evidence which can prove that the pots are brought by these people with the bones. It is perhaps that the people with the bones really had migrated, but the pots were own and brought by other people who traded. If so, the assertion will be of little persuade (persuasive).

The third problem involves the fact that there are many possibilities of how the pots were spread, but, in the report, only two cases were considered. Perhaps the pots are nether by migrating nor trading, but the residents of such place also have such skill to make the pots. Without excluding such possibility, how can the speaker assert that the pots were spread by migration, not trade?

In sum, the speaker cannot justify his voting assertion on basis of such scant evidence. To bolster his assertion, the speaker should provide convincing evidence that the analysis is right at any matter and the relationship between the bones and pots truly exist. To better evaluate this assertion, I would need to know whether there are other possibilities that can cause such phenomena.

句子够复杂，有点gre的意思，但是有点过了，我感觉，另外论述的顺序稍微理一下！！