Argument33 [Victors小组]自由练习

njuzhshaoUID: 2258118

题目：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."
字数：401          用时：0:38:28          日期：2007/7/28

Two points must be justified before a confirmed assertion can be given that 'it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade.' One is the existence of migrators from pots' making place, while the other is a proof that there were no trades of pots between these two sites involved. However, the author fails to convince us either of them.

The fact that high level metallic element is found in the bones beside the pots is resorted to by the argument to prove that the bones are from the pots makers: the migrators. However, the mere conclusion of study that high level metallic element of prehistoric human skeletons is 'associated with' people who migrated is not sufficient enough to 'distinguish' them. It is possible that local residents coincidently had high level metallic element in bones, which may the result of the special materials in their drinking water, and then accumulated in their bones. Or perhaps suffering from some epidemic diseases, these residents had disability to normally excrete this special kinds of metallic element. Simply judge that the bones were from migrators is not so convincing.

Even if the migration experience of the owners is proved by later study, can we say that they are the makers of the pots? Seemingly not. If one migration is proved to existed in the history, it is reasonable to infer that more might happened. Besides the pot-making district, migrators might come from other districts. These area might be a plane where transports were easier and thus migration was a common acts. On this condition, migrators would be much more difficult to distinguish, even impossible.

To justify the second conclusion is even much harder. When arguing this, one can easily mistake the merely fact that no evidence is found to support the assumption that there is a trade of pots as the sufficient evidence for the conclusion that no trade existed. Actually, the argument gives no other reasoning for the second point but the absence of even merely mention of trades. Even if we ignore the possibility that the author hides the existing adverse evidences, we cannot jump to the assertion as analyzed above.

Finally, without the two basic points left not well-proved, neither of the two points asserted by the author fails to be reached. It seems the debate will keep up in the air for a long time before new convincing evidences are found.