Argument33 by 小破孩 (比较优秀的作品, 建议大家学习下--by lastangel)

小破孩UID: 2125288

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."

Words: 498
The above argument advocates the hypothesis that the distinctive shaped pots are spread by the migration of the pot makers. To substantiate this assertion, he cites the study showing the existence of certain metallic elements from skeletal analysis of nearby bones. However, closer scrutiny would reveal several logical fallacies he commits as illustrated below.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that there are only two possible routes for the pots spreading. Yet no evidence is provided to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is equally likely that aside from pot maker’s migration or trading, there are other alternative explanations of those scattered pots which are neglected here. For instance, the pots might act as tributes to show obeisance and were kept as art collections by the nobilities. Or they may be plundered as the trophy during wars and concealed as burial artifacts. It also might be the case that the pots are just one ordinary container of a nomadic tribe and exist wherever the tribe has been to. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause seriously doubt to how the pots are spread.

Secondly, even if we concede there are only two probabilities to spread the pots, it is presumptuous to solve the problem only according to the record of bone analysis. In other words, whether the metallic element trace result is sufficient to rule out either circumstance is suspected. We cannot even tell the identity of the nearby bones in the first place. Is he the pot maker, the pot user, the pot trader or just a thief wants to steal the pot? If the body near the pots have no relation with the pots, why should we bother examine his bone metallic element, let alone explaining of the spread of those pots. Unless the involvement of the body to the pots’ spreading is confirmed, hardly can we make any meaningful analysis upon the body or provide any useful hints about the spreading of the pots.

Moreover, even assuming that the prehistoric body is relevant, the high levels of metallic element don’t necessarily indicate the migration cause of pots’ spreading. Without information about the foods containing the metallic element and their geological distribution, we cannot make any surmise about the spreading of the pots. If the comestible animals containing the metallic element actually migrate to where the pots were found, either of the proposed hypotheses can be explained. It is also possible that foods containing the metallic element are rich in both areas where the pots were made and where the pots were traded if there is any. Only after evaluation of all the facts mentioned above, might we prevent misleading interpretation of the analysis.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands and renders it lacks credibility. Without ruling out other hypotheses the pots might spread, confirming the relation between the bone and the pots or a persuasive interpretation of the analysis results, the arguer’s advocation cannot be accepted.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-15 11:56 编辑 ]

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

语言不错，用词也很牛，
错误分析的也不错
好文:loveliness:
如果能段内结构再清晰一下，或许会更好:handshake

wzhfutureUID: 2264867

The above argument advocates the hypothesis that the distinctive shaped pots are spread by the migration of the pot makers. To substantiate this assertion, he(来得好突然还是先author吧) cites the study showing the existence of certain metallic elements from skeletal analysis of nearby bones. However, closer scrutiny would reveal several logical fallacies he commits as illustrated below.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that there are only two possible routes for the pots spreading. Yet no evidence is provided to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is equally likely that aside from pot maker’s migration or trading, there are other alternative explanations of those scattered pots which are neglected here. For instance, the pots might act as tributes to show obeisance and were kept as art collections by the nobilities. Or they may be plundered as the trophy during wars and concealed as burial artifacts. It also might be the case that the pots are just one ordinary container of a nomadic tribe and exist wherever the tribe has been to. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause seriously doubt to how the pots are spread. (感觉题目已经默认只考虑这两种情况,因为两次用到了maker这个词)
Secondly, even if we concede there are only two probabilities to spread the pots, it is presumptuous to solve the problem only according to the record of bone analysis. In other words, whether the metallic element trace result is sufficient to rule out either circumstance is suspected(suspect). We cannot even tell the identity of the nearby bones in the first place. Is he the pot maker, the pot user, the pot trader or just a thief wants(who wanted) to steal the pot? If the body near the pots have no relation with the pots, why should we bother(to) examine his bone's metallic element, let alone explaining of the spread of those pots. Unless the involvement of the body(body好象已经变bones了吧,呵呵) to the pots’ spreading is confirmed, hardly can we make any meaningful analysis upon the body or provide any useful hints about the spreading of the pots.

Moreover, even assuming that the prehistoric body is relevant, the high levels of metallic element don’t necessarily indicate the migration caused of pots’ spreading. Without information about the foods containing the metallic element and their geological distribution, we cannot make any surmise about the spreading of the pots. If the comestible animals containing the metallic element actually migrated to where the pots were found, either of the proposed hypotheses can be explained. It is also possible that foods containing the metallic element are rich in both areas where the pots were made and where the pots were traded if there is any. Only after evaluation of all the facts mentioned above, might we prevent misleading interpretation of the analysis.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands and renders it lacks(lacking) credibility. Without ruling out other hypotheses the pots might spread, confirming the relation between the bone and the pots or a persuasive interpretation of the analysis results, the arguer’s advocation cannot be accepted
总体满好的,感觉你词汇量巨大,而且句式用的满熟练的.羡.....
也不知改的正确与否,呵呵...

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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."

Words: 498
The above argument advocates the hypothesis that the distinctive shaped pots are spread by the migration of the pot makers. To substantiate this assertion(assertion用的有点多余, 前面其实没有说是个assertion, 而是advocate hypothesis, 同义替换不能精确对应的话不如直接就写it), he cites the (a, 第一次提到用不定惯词) study showing the existence of certain metallic elements from skeletal analysis of nearby bones(as evidence 不加个尾巴觉得这句的表达没有完整, 单纯的cite显得目的性不强). However, closer scrutiny would reveal several logical fallacies he commits as illustrated below.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that there are only two possible routes for the pots spreading. Yet no evidence is provided to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is equally likely that aside from pot maker’s migration or trading, there are other alternative explanations of those scattered pots which are neglected here.(感觉三句话模版味很重, 有些沉冗, 完全可以一句话说完, the author, without any evidence, presumes that...which unfairly excludes other alternative explanations..虽然AW用短句子和简单句来表达没有任何问题, 但最好段落主题句能让人一眼看出你这段要说的是作者的什么错误) For instance, the pots might act as tributes to show obeisance and were kept as art collections by the nobilities. Or they may be plundered as the trophy during wars and concealed as burial artifacts. It also might be the case that the pots are just one ordinary container of a nomadic tribe and exist wherever the tribe has been to. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause seriously doubt to how the pots are spread(as the author supposes, 这种指代需要精确些). (论证的很不错, 语言也相当到位, 不过分析语句的针对性不强, 作者并不是直接assume, 而是陈述了两派学者的观点, 这种时候针对题目的叙述做些变化显得很必要, 比如质问是否还有的其它的观点, 由于缺乏证据, 我们不能就认为这两种代表了所有的可能性, 等等.)

Secondly, even if we concede there are only two probabilities to spread the pots, it is presumptuous to solve the problem only according to the record of bone analysis. In other words, whether the metallic element trace result is sufficient to rule out either circumstance is suspected.(后面整段说的是骨头的identity,这个跟metallic element trace的逻辑关系并不是直接的, 中间还有个采样的步骤, 所以前面直接用这个trace指代不太合适, 虽然和第一句指的是同一个意思, 但这样替换表达的重点却有所变化) We cannot even tell the identity of the nearby bones in the first place. Is he the pot maker, the pot user, the pot trader or just a thief wants to steal the pot? If the body near the pots have no relation with the pots, why should we bother examine his bone metallic element, let alone explaining of the spread of those pots. Unless the involvement of the body to the pots’ spreading is confirmed, hardly can we make any meaningful analysis upon the body or provide any useful hints about the spreading of the pots.

Moreover, even assuming that the prehistoric body is relevant, the high levels of metallic element don’t necessarily indicate the migration cause of pots’ spreading. Without information about the foods containing the metallic element and their geological distribution, we cannot make any surmise about the spreading of the pots. (how could such information contribute to our analysis? 这句话看的有些让人摸不着头脑, 在后面举出具体的可能性来论证这种情况之前最好先进行抽象的summarize, 比如用几个并列结构说明这种信息的作用, 然后再将它detail化, 这样文章句子间的过度就会流畅很多) If the comestible animals containing the metallic element actually migrate to where the pots were found, either of the proposed hypotheses can be explained(why? 还是深度欠缺, 加一个简短的说明能让这样的论证强烈很多, 比如explained by attributing the result to corresponding diet with such animals). It is also possible that foods containing the metallic element are rich in both areas where the pots were made and where the pots were traded if there is any(, indicating the correlation of migration and the elements is invalid when concerning this specifical situation). Only after evaluation of all the facts mentioned above, might we prevent misleading interpretation of the analysis.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands and renders it lacks credibility. Without ruling out other hypotheses the pots might spread, confirming the relation between the bone and the pots or a persuasive interpretation of the analysis results, the arguer’s advocation cannot be accepted.

总评: 首先要肯定这是篇非常优秀的作品, 我觉得至少有5分
存在的一些小问题:
1, 有些指代太潦草, 就象2楼说的, 一会bone一会body的, 虽然大家都知道是同一个东西, 但是表达精确的话这种情况要尽量避免, 有些你做的同义替换你自己看来很明白, 但别人看起来就会有些晕
2, BODY第三部分论证深度不够, 主要也由于这道题相对比较难, 作者的逻辑并不清楚, 所以你虽然知道题怎么错了, 但你得有效的将自己对这种错误的见解传达出来, 把你的理解说完整, 而不应该说了可能性以后把剩下的推断留给读者自己去做.

DemoUID: 2331967

学习完毕
顺便顶顶～