|
【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。 【原题纲】 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。（需要把思路阐述完整）
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。（最好把这一段的内容分层再独立作段，这样整个文章更清晰）
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。（这个角度很不错） 【新提纲】 1. 食物中MC与迁移的人有关系，不意味着骨头中的MC与迁移的人有关系。即使骨头中的MC与迁移的人有关系，也不一定是因果关系。因此，骨头中含有ME，并不能证明这些骨头来自迁移的人。 2. 骨头只发现一部分地区，而没有证据表明这地区有典型性，因此得不出推论。 3. 即使这些地区有典型性，也无法说明结论。因为不能说明这些骨头是maker的骨头。 4. 即使是maker的骨头，也无法说明结论。因为这个现象并不能排除pots通过贸易分散的可能。很可能是pots maker移居了这里之后才开始从事making pots这项工作，而他们工作的目的是为了贸易来赚钱。 5. 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.（开头再详细一些是否更好？与正文的充实相比，这里很不协调，这是我见过的最简单的开头了） First of all, the author falsely equates the metallic elements in foods with that in bones.（equate to/with 这个词组用的很好。或者开头可以说The argument is unconvincing because it is based on a false analogy…/ The arguer does not differentiate between A and B）（这里添我在提纲里阐述的逻辑，使得文章逻辑更明朗，Based on the false analogy, the author assumes that …which lack reliable evidence.） 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（such as 是否更合适？） the climate, even the gene. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the exist (名词形式为existence) of the metallic elements in bones the author could not convinced（convince） me on the basis of them that these bones belong to people who immigrate（这一点在这一段是否先不提，把它放到后面阐述更好？使得全文更条理）, let alone that the pots were spread by migration.（结尾句经典，用得比较合适） 下面这一段我只改了语言思路，逻辑结构方面按照改后的提纲写或许更条理。 Then, even though the metallic elements in foods can be related to that in bones, there is no evidence to prove that they（the bones，否则容易感觉they指代 metallic elements）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 （这里出现严重语法错误，attribute to 为动词词组不用BE，或者用B is attributable to A,其中，B为结果，A 为原因，这句话需要重新组织） the migration of pots. For instance, maybe the makers learned to make pots （in order for trade） after their migration. In that case, the elements in bones have nothing to do with the spread of pots（这句话我不明白，逻辑不是很清楚，如果出现在考场上，太糟了，应为它跳去了中间的逻辑衔接，感觉思维不连贯，是一跳一跳的。直接说 the conclusion that pots were spread by migration is unconvincing 都貌似比这样跳强点）. Since the argument fails to consider other alternative explanations for the migration （spread更好） of pots, I find the argument state that the pots were spread by migration should receive credit unconvincing.（觉得问题不是作者没考虑，而是无故排除，好像你的这句话是下面这一段的总结，可是你又放到上面这一段，所以导致这段和下段衔接是逻辑侧重点不明朗。总之，建议重新排版第二段。） 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（这一块主谓不一致，可以这么说， the pots are among some kinds of popular gifts at that time）, so they were given from one area to another. Or this kind of art （arts\crafts）is（are） popular through a wide range of area（through a wide area，或 a wide range of areas,又是单复数问题）. In these cases（或者用in either case）, the spread of pots were also possible（你这么表达也可以，不过可以简练的说作者的结论不成立即可）. Thus, without listing （或者用ruling out） other possible explanations, this argument is still an unsubstantiated one.(is still unsubstantiated 就可以) In conclusion, this argument, while it seems logically at first, have several flaws as discussed above. （这句话经典，用的好）The argument could be improved （这一句改成，to support the …, the author need to …会不会更好）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. 【参考链接】 (被改文章原帖地址)https://bbs.gter.net/thread-908721-1-1.html
[ 本帖最后由 susanner 于 2009-1-12 13:13 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2009-1-12 13:09:25
0
转发
签到领寄托币
GO
