Argument33 【SWEETBOX小组】第四次作业

jiangyue011UID: 2340595

TOPIC: ARGUMENT33 - 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."


The claim that the ceramic pots were spread by the makers’ migration rather than trade seems at first glance appealing, nevertheless, careful examination reveals it conceals several logical flaws illustrated blow, and it is therefore not well reasoned.

First of all, the mere fact that at some sites have been found bones with high levels of metallic element does not necessarily suggest the makers have been migrated from one place to another. It is possible that people at such places eat tremendous amounts of food such as cabbage, seafood, etc., which contains plenty of the metallic element. It is also possible that people there are dwelled on mineral beds which a lot of metallic element, and accordingly the water people drank, the plants they ate, the animals the hunted all conceals a large amount of metallic element. Either scenario, if true, would be an alternative explanation of the bones of high levels of metallic element. Moreover, only a few sites have been found such bones, it is very likely that at other sites no such bones have been revealed, making the conclusion of this argument not cogent.

Secondly, the arguer does not provide solid evidence about whether the bones belonged to the pot makers or they are human beings’ skeleton bones. If the bones belonged to the local residents, then the level of the metallic element would explain little, if any migration incidents. Or if such sites had natural beauties, comfortable weather or other factors that attract a lot of people from other places, it is very likely that the bones were from visitors from distinct areas. In addition, the arguer fails to inform us that the bones are human’s skeleton bones. Bones of other parts of the body would not have a correlation of the migration of the individuals. Thus, even if a great many of the metallic element have been found in such bones, it will never be a clue of the migration. Also, if the bones simply belong to other creatures like monkeys or elephants, how can the arguer conclude that the pots were carried during migration?

Thirdly, without knowing the level of the metallic contained in pot makers’ bones, any conclusion of the real cause of the spread of the pots would be too hasty. People at that age would have a lot of differences between people at our time. Perhaps almost all individuals at that age had bones with high levels of such metallic element just simply because of racial or historical reasons. The climate, food, water, culture war, or even psychological state of people of that time would also be a qualified explanation of the bones of high level of the metallic element.

To sum up, the argument lacks credible reasons and meticulous argumentation. Before the archaeology journal would be printed and disseminated, a revision of the paragraph is urgently needed. After all, a flawed article would not only be a laughingstock of the author but also be a threat of the reputation of the journal.
感觉这篇Argu不太好写，sigh.

mym1102UID: 2326718

本人菜鸟，看了楼住的文章，有点建议
我觉得在argument里，主要是批判逻辑问题。
就是在文章给出的前提下对结论进行批判
不应该涉及文章给出的背景，
就比如文中说的关于bones withe higer level of metallic element 的问题
我们就不应该说这个科学依据怎样怎样
不知道我说的是不是对啊

wchao69UID: 2209794

The claim that the ceramic pots were spread by the makers’ migration rather than trade seems at first glance appealing, nevertheless, careful examination reveals it conceals several logical flaws illustrated blow, and it is therefore not well reasoned.First of all, the mere fact that at some sites (少主语)it has been found bones with high levels of metallic element does not necessarily suggest the makers have been migrated from one place to another. It is possible that people at such places eat tremendous amounts of food such as cabbage, seafood, etc., which contains plenty of the metallic element. It is also possible that people there are dwelled on mineral beds which a lot of metallic element,(这句话有问题？) and accordingly the water people drank, the plants they ate, the animals hunted all conceals a large amount of metallic element. Any scenario, if true, would be an alternative explanation of the bones of high levels of metallic element. Moreover, only a few sites have been found such bones, it is very likely that at other sites no such bones have been revealed, making the conclusion of this argument not cogent.Secondly, the arguer does not provide solid evidence about whether the bones belonged to the pot makers or they are human beings’ skeleton bones. If the bones belonged to the local residents, then the level of the metallic element would explain little, if any migration incidents. Or if such sites had natural beauties, comfortable weather or other factors that attract a lot of people from other places, it is very likely that the bones were from visitors from distinct areas.(远古时代的旅游业应该没有那么发达吧~。) In addition, the arguer fails to inform us that the bones are human’s skeleton bones. Bones of other parts of the body would not have a correlation of the migration of the individuals. Thus, even if a great many of the metallic element have been found in such bones, it will never be a clue of the migration. Also, if the bones simply belong to other creatures like monkeys or elephants, how can the arguer conclude that the pots were carried during migration?Thirdly, without knowing the level of the metallic contained in pot makers’ bones, any conclusion of the real cause of the spread of the pots would be too hasty. People at that age would have a lot of differences between people at our time. Perhaps almost all individuals at that age had bones with high levels of such metallic element just simply because of racial or historical reasons. The climate, food, water, culture war, or even psychological state of people of that time would also be a qualified explanation of the bones of high level of the metallic element. To sum up, the argument lacks credible reasons and meticulous argumentation. Before the archaeology journal would be printed and disseminated, a revision of the paragraph is urgently needed. After all, a flawed article would not only be a laughingstock of the author but also be a threat of the reputation of the journal.

这片文章确实不好写~~fortunately ,频很低。