Argument33【SWEETBOX小组】第四次作业 by 雅典娜的宠儿

wzhfutureUID: 2264867

The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered分散 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."





In this report, the author makes the claim  that the pots found at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area were spread by migration rather than trade and he believes he has settled a debate .To justify his claim, he cites the facts that high level of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood which is due to an analysis .Thus, many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites which showed high levels of the metallic element substantiate his viewpoint. Close look at the facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the claim.
First of all, the author doesn't provide the fundamental information about the analysis including how and under what circumstances the analysis was carried out. Lacking such information ,it's entirely possible that the analysis was basically untenable because the  method was wrong or the result of the analysis is only correct under certain circumstance and unavailable if the circumstance changes. The places where the bones used in the analysis came from should also be considered. For there may be difference between bones of people living in two places at that time, thus bones used in the analysis may not typify the bones found near the pots.
Secondly, even if  the analysis was correct ,the author assumes further that the pots were spread by migration, not trade. However, this is not so convincing .It's  entirely possible that the dealers settled there and never went back or because of illness they died there. Accidentally, their bones were found thousands of years later. It's also probable that the buyers came to buy pots themselves ,of course they would went back .And the makers may went out hunting or traveling carrying the pots with them and died on the way .So the pots were left there besides the bones. Without ruling out so many possibilities, the author's viewpoint is unconvincing.
Furthermore, the author unfairly assumes that pots  found at various sites were  all spread  by migration .However he overlooks the facts that the bones which showed high levels of the metallic element were only from a few places not all  the places where the pots were found .Thus we cannot rule out the possibility that pots found in other places were spread by trade not migration.
In final analysis, this report is logically flawed in several critical respects. To convince us his viewpoint better, the author should make sure the analysis is correct itself  and can be used under all circumstances. He should also read some books about that period of history to better consider all the possibilities and make a sound conclusion.

小破孩UID: 2125288

In this report, the author makes the claim  that the pots found at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area were spread这句好像两个动词？可不可以改成,......scattered over a wide area, by .......by migration rather than trade and he believes he has settled a debate .感觉这句有点长~~~分开会不会好点？To justify his claim, he cites the facts that high level of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood which is due to an analysis .Thus, many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites which showed high levels of the metallic element substantiate his viewpoint. Close look at the facts, however, reveals that none of them lend lead吧？credible support to the claim.

First of all, the author doesn't provide the fundamental information about the analysis including how and under what circumstances the analysis was carried out. 有点抽象，刚看感觉不知所云，感觉和我那个开头用魔版感觉差不多吧~~~呵呵Lacking such information ,it's entirely possible that the analysis was basically untenable because the  method was wrong or the result of the analysis is only correct under certain circumstance and unavailable if the circumstance changes. 直到这些都太抽象了，呵呵，提一下题目里的信息吧The places where the bones used in the analysis came from should also be considered. For there may be difference between bones of people living in two places at that time, thus bones used in the analysis may not typify the bones found near the pots.虽然这篇我也写过，但是看了还是不太知道你重点批驳的是什么？如果是想说被检验的骨头和坛子无关的话，那感觉前面的说明有点不明确，具体一点可以会好一点吧

Secondly, even if  the analysis was correct ,the author assumes further that the pots were spread by migration, not trade. However, this is not so convincing .It's  entirely possible that the dealers settled there and never went back or because of illness they died there. Accidentally, their bones were found thousands of years later. It's also probable that the buyers came to buy pots themselves ,of course they would went back .And the makers may went out hunting or traveling carrying the pots with them and died on the way .这里说得很详细哦，呵呵，学习，我就是觉得题目这里根本就没有逻辑，所以怎么说都可以解释反而不知道该怎么说好了:confused: So the pots were left there besides the bones. Without ruling out so many possibilities, the author's viewpoint is unconvincing.

Furthermore, the author unfairly assumes that pots  found at various sites were  all spread  by migration .However he overlooks（这个词好，学习之） the facts that the bones which showed high levels of the metallic element were only from a few places not all  the places where the pots were found .Thus we cannot rule out the possibility that pots found in other places were spread by trade not migration.点批的是对的，但是好像有点单薄的说

In final analysis, this report is logically flawed in several critical respects. To convince us his viewpoint better好像是病句，to convince us better or to strengthen his viewpoint better?, the author should make sure the analysis is correct itself  and can be used under all circumstances. He should also read some books about that period of history to better consider all the possibilities and make a sound conclusion.

最后的建议很新颖呢，但是感觉body1论述的不够好，感觉好像批卷人还蛮看重一点的吧，毕竟是supposed最严重最最错误的地方放在第一段写，呵呵，多谢你的修改，一起加油：）