Argument33【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 by 过期的蛋糕

过期的蛋糕UID: 2586400

题目：
Argument 33
The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
'The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at variousprehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists toask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated tothe various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believethe pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place.Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settlethe debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained invarious foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a newplace after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a fewsites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must bethat the pots were spread by migration, not trade.'
在广泛区域分散分布的很多史前遗迹发现的形状独特的陶壶导致考古学家提出疑问：这些壶是如何流传的？有些人相信壶的制造者迁移到别的地方并把壶随之带来；另一些人相信壶是通过贸易流传的，而他们的制造者留在一个地方。现在，对于史前人类骨骼的分析可以解决这个争论:在多种食物中都含有的某种金属元素的高含量与那些成年后移居到新地方的人有很高的关联性。在一些遗迹的壶附近发现的很多骨头都显示出这种金属元素的高含量。因此，这些壶肯定是通过迁徙而不是贸易来流传的。

提纲：
1。食物中metallic element的含量与骨头中metallic element的含量并没有直接联系。
2。骨头只发现与一部分地区，且不能证明这些骨头正好就是pots maker的骨头。即使是，pots maker的移居与pots的分散也并没有必然联系，很可能是pots maker移居了之后才开始从事making pots这项工作。
3。 没有证明说migration与trade是仅有的两种可能，也许还有其它解释的存在。

正文：
This argument contains several facts that are questionable.

First of all, the author falsely equates the metallic elements in foods with that in bones. It is entirely possible that these kinds of elements cannot be accumulated in bones at all, and the elements in bones are not due to these certain foods, but others, or due to the climate, even the gene. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the exist of the metallic elements in bones the author could not convinced me on the basis of them that these bones belong to people who immigrate, let alone that the pots were spread by migration.

Then, even though the metallic elements in foods can be related to that in bones, there is no evidence to prove that they are just the pots makers'. More over, they were only found in a few sites. Perhaps, in more other sites, no such elements found in bones near the pots. Even all of this is true; it is still unfair to assume that the migration of pots makers must be attribute to the migration of pots. For instance, maybe the makers learned to make pots after their migration. In that case, the elements in bones have nothing to do with the spread of pots. Since the argument fails to consider other alternative explanations for the migration of pots, I find the argument state that the pots were spread by migration should receive credit unconvincing.

Finally, the author's conclusion based on the assumption that there are only two possible reasons to explain the spread of pots, which is obviously unfair. It is quite reasonable that the pots is a kind of gift which were popular at that time, so they were given from one area to another. Or this kind of art is popular through a wide range of area. In these cases, the spread of pots were also possible. Thus, without listing other possible explanations, this argument is still an unsubstantiated one.

In conclusion, this argument, while it seems logically at first, have several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing the evidence that relate metallic elements in foods to that in bones. It could be further improved by ruling out other possible reasons for the spread of pots.




[ 本帖最后由 过期的蛋糕 于 2009-1-11 14:16 编辑 ]

susannerUID: 2209224

on 过期的蛋糕
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-908817-1-1.html