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

susannerUID: 2209224

【题目】
Argument 33
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.'
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
【简要分析作者思路】
论点：这些壶肯定是通过迁徙而不是贸易来流传的。
论据：
1. high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood
high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods与people who migrated to a new place after childhood有关
=====>前提
2. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element
=====>现象
分析：
这个推论，作者有3个错误假设
1.       认为高金属元素与迁移的人有关，而壶旁边的骨头有高金属元素，所以壶旁边的人一定是迁移的。
首先，高金属元素含量水平与迁移只是有关，并没有说明迁移的人死后骨头里就一定有这种元素。可能两者有因果关系，但是作者并没有证明这种因果关系。因此骨头里金属含量高并不能退出壶旁的骨头是迁移的。
2.       作者无根据的认为壶旁边的骨头是其所有者。
3.       并进一步假设并且是壶的生产者而不是消费者，所以排除了贸易的可能。
4.       并且at a few sites 不能证明全部

【提纲】（中文或英文）

1. 作者将因果关系与单纯的关联关系混淆。先阐述分析1，然后说明骨头金属含量高的其他原因：比如当地人习惯吃含这种元素高的食物，所以造成…，而这些壶的旁的骨头是当地人，而非迁移的人。

2. 壶旁边的骨头不一定是壶的所有者.

3. 即使是所有者，也不一定是生产者。交易和移民可以同时进行，人们不一定要带着pots才可以emigrate

4．at a few sites不代表全部

【正文】
the report concludes that the pots were spread by migration. To support the conclusion, the report cites an analysis of the bones of prehistoric human sleletons. However, careful scrutiny/(a careful analysis) of the analysis (study) reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting the report’s conclusion, as discussed below.

First of all, the report concludes based on a known correlation between high levels of the metallic element and people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Yet the correlation alone amouts to scant evidence of the unsubstantiated assumption that bones of people who migratied to a new place after childhood will certainly contains the metallic element. Perhaps high levels of this metallic element in bones can be caused by other factors as well, which are absent in other sites but present in these sites. The report has not counted the possibility that high levels of the metallic element is caused of eating migrated animals in which  the levels of metallic element which contains in various foods  are high.If this is the case , then the conclusion that the pots were spread by migration would lack any merit at all.
Secondly, the conclusion depends on another unsubstantiated assumption that the bones found near the pots are from the  owners. Perhaps the bones and the pots are from different time periods which will render the conclusion based apon the assumption unpersuasive.
Thirdly, even the bones do come from the owners, the authors fails to provide any reliable evidence that the owners are also the makers. The report unfairly exclude the possibility that the pots are spread by trade without  any reasons. The conclusion suffers from critical logical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
Fourthly, another problem with the report involves the cited statistics about the sites where those bones were found. Depending on the total sites in this area, it is entirely possible that these sites are not representative of the whole sites, generally. If so, the possibility will serve to undermine the reports conclusion that the pots were spread by migration.
In sum, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion the author of the report must provide clear evidence that the correlation is cause-and-effect relationship. And the report needs to provide evidence to prove the bones near the pots are from the makers not consumers. To better assess the conclusion, I would need to know the statistics of other sites.

           



[ 本帖最后由 susanner 于 2009-1-12 09:39 编辑 ]

susannerUID: 2209224

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-908828-1-1.html