argument33 [terrible 9.11 小组]第一次作业

chineseliUID: 2366474

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."
WORDS: 334          TIME: 00:50:58          DATE: 8/15/2007 4:48:44 PM

The speaker asserts that the pots discovered  at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration but not by trade.But the speaker fails to give us any  persuasive evidence that can support his argument.

Firstly,this assertion is mainly based on the relationship between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and the people who migrated to a new place after childhood that the latter is attributable to the former.But the relationship seems unreasonable.The speaker tells us nothing about why this relationship exists, and in fact the relationship seems groundless. The high levels of certain metallic elements in the bones found near the pots may come from sources other than foods,e.g it can be from certain drugs .In the ancient times ,many drugs contained heavy metallic elements like Lead and Mercury which may have an agreeable taste or make people feel wonderful ,many rich people in that time eat those drugs for fun or to cure certain disceases.So the basis of this argument is unwarranted.

Secondly,even if  the relationship the speaker assumes exists ，the argument is  also logically flawed.The bones found near the pots may not come from the pots makers.The pots can be brought by the bones owner from the pots makers,then the buyers migrated to the places where the pots were discovered.So it is illogical to say the bones must be the pots makers'.

Finally,this argument suffers another crucial falacy.It is said bones contained high levels of the metallic element were found only at a few sites.So it is too hasty to draw a conclusion that all the pots were spread by migration.Maybe only pots found near in the few sites were spread by migration and other pots may by trade.

In sum,this argument fails to convince us that the pots discovered at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration but not trade.The speaker don't give  us reasonalbe evidence to support his basis of the argument.So the point that the pots are spread by migration cannot be regarded as correct.

写个argu还写这么长时间，唉～:mad

笨笨猫UID: 2381117

第一段明显太简单了，还可以再扩展点，比如作者是如何得出他的论证的，他的论据是什么，也为后面的批驳做准备。要写出你认为为何作者fails to give us any persuaive.
整个看起来苍白啊，比我的还苍白啊。。。而且有些语法小错误要改。个人认为，如果长的复杂的句子我们写不了，宁愿写自己拿手和熟悉的，为了写长难句而造出来的句子如果不通的话就得不偿失了啊。

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-722994-1-1.html
我的作文，帮我也看看啊

[ 本帖最后由 笨笨猫 于 2007-8-15 20:46 编辑 ]

chineseliUID: 2366474

提纲
a3
1.the arguer fails to convince us that  lack of job satisfaciton is the reason for the 15%decline in the number of law scholl graduaters who went to work for large corporate firms.

2.there is no strong evidence to support the assumption that the smaller firms could offer more job satisfaction to graduates

3.the arguer oversimplifed job satisfaciton as the less work hours and higher salaries.

4.the statistic on 1st year students cannot represent the general trend.


a11.
1.the argument only tells us condition of the household garbage recycling and do not take the industrial garbage into consideration.
2.the increasing population in town may offset the decrease of garbage disposal caused by more recycling.
3.the detail of the survey

wuyeUID: 2348444

The speaker asserts that the pots discovered  at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration but not（用rather than，rather than多专业呀！） by trade.But the speaker fails to give us any  persuasive evidence that can support his argument.

Firstly,this assertion is mainly based on the relationship between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and the people who migrated to a new place after childhood that the latter is attributable to the former.（我觉得是多余，提了也罢。 不过是我没见过的用法也不一定，呵呵~）But the relationship seems unreasonable.The speaker tells us nothing about why this relationship exists, and in fact the relationship seems groundless. The high levels of certain metallic elements in the bones found near the pots may come from sources other than foods,e.g it can be from certain drugs .In the ancient times ,many drugs contained heavy metallic elements like Lead and Mercury which may have an agreeable taste or make people feel wonderful ,many rich people in that time eat those drugs for fun or to cure certain disceases. （drug? 恩，新颖，li 不愧是学chemistry 的哦~）So the basis of this argument is unwarranted.

Secondly,even if  the relationship the speaker assumes exists ，the argument is  also logically flawed.The bones found near the pots may not come from the pots makers.The pots can (may) be brought by the bones owner from the pots makers(懒人，拼写错误都不改),then the buyers migrated to the places where the pots were discovered.So it is illogical to say the bones must be the pots makers'.

Finally,this argument suffers another crucial falacy.It is said bones contained high levels of the metallic element were found only at a few sites.So it is too hasty to draw a conclusion that all the pots were spread by migration.Maybe only pots found near in（灭掉 ）the few sites were spread by migration and other pots may by trade.这样写就不平衡了，后半句不妨这样写：, while in other sites, the spread as caused by trade.

In sum,this argument fails to convince us that the pots discovered at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration but not trade.The speaker don't give  us reasonalbe evidence to support his basis of the argument.So （用In this way 更漂亮） the point that the pots are spread by migration cannot be regarded as correct.


总评：

整体思路完整，每段有明确批驳原因，建议提升语言and句子连贯性！

[ 本帖最后由 wuye 于 2007-8-15 23:11 编辑 ]

goldzincUID: 2378390

咳，那个关于drug的，史前不存在这个东西吧……

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

The speaker asserts that the pots discovered  at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration but not by trade.But the speaker fails to give us any  persuasive evidence that can support his argument.

Firstly,this assertion is mainly based on the relationship between high levels(应该单数吧，是level 这个状态) of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and the people who migrated to a new place after childhood that the latter is attributable to the former.But the relationship seems unreasonable.（直接批驳论据好像不太好，要从逻辑上找错误的，应该说尽管可能有这种联系，但不一定是因果关系）The speaker tells us nothing about why this relationship exists, and in fact the relationship seems groundless. The high levels of certain metallic elements in the bones found near the pots may come from sources other than foods,e.g it can be from certain drugs .In the ancient times ,many drugs contained heavy metallic elements like Lead and Mercury which may have an agreeable taste or make people feel wonderful ,many rich people in that time eat those drugs for fun or to cure certain disceases.So the basis of this argument is unwarranted.

Secondly,even if  the relationship the speaker assumes exists ，the argument is  also logically flawed.（TS应写出具体是哪个逻辑错误的）The bones found near the pots may not come from the pots makers.The pots can be brought by the bones owner from the pots makers,then the buyers migrated to the places where the pots were discovered.So it is illogical to say the bones must be the pots makers'.

Finally,this argument suffers another crucial falacy.（同上）It is said bones contained high levels of the metallic element were found only at a few sites.最好这里能展开一下调查数据不充分会导致什末后果。So it is too hasty to draw a conclusion that all the pots were spread by migration.Maybe only pots found near in the few sites were spread by migration and other pots may by trade.

In sum,this argument fails to convince us that the pots discovered at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration but not trade.The speaker don't give  us reasonalbe （reasonable）evidence to support his basis of the argument.So the point that the pots are spread by migration cannot be regarded as correct.
加油！

[ 本帖最后由 qiuzirumeng 于 2007-8-16 09:12 编辑 ]

chineseliUID: 2366474

好建议，史前有没有那些东西确实难说，但史前嘛，没有记载了。很多重金属的天然化合物也是有特殊甜味或是别的总用的，我应该说一下的……