Argument37

半妖UID: 2328063

Argument37
"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 pots were spread not by trade, but migration, does seem to be persuasive since high levels of a certain metallic element which is found in a few sites near the pots are strongly associated with people migrating after childhood. However, close and careful scrutiny of the argument reveals that it is actually problematic in some ground.

First, no evidence provided suffice to support the assumption that this certain metallic element can only be found in migrations' bones. Perhaps since there are various foods which contain this  element , mankind who have never not moved also take them for dinner and thereby it is their bones that are found with high level of the element besides the pots. Since the arguer overlooks this possibility and others, this assumption above is open to doubt.

Even if the element can only be found in migration skeleton, the arguer unjustly assumes that it is the pot maker whose bones are found near the pots.(觉得不通) Common sense tells me it is entirely possible that those remains are left by travelers who are coincidentally buried adjacent to the pots. Without ruling this and other explanations, the arguer can not justly draw to the conclusion that the bones belong to ceramic maker.

Even granted that it is the maker whose skeleton has been found, the assumption is still vulnerable in that only a few sites showed a high level of the element. The fact may indicate that some makers have immigrated to those sites. However others may not. It is entirely possible that  pots may spread both by trade and also by carrying with themselves. In short, unless all these scenarios are eliminated, it is unjustly to draw the assumption that the pots are spread only by migration.

Summing up, the argument suffers from several patent fallacies. To better establish the assumption, the arguer should provide evidence that the specific element only contains in people who immigrated after childhood; to better strengthen the argument, more information about the bones owners’ identity should be provided. Also, to make the argument convincing, thorough investigation and careful consideration is needed .

个人认为措辞缺乏变化，语言不够简练，但是又不知道应该怎么改。



[ 本帖最后由 半妖 于 2008-3-1 02:04 编辑 ]