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

露珠UID: 2588328

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

【题目】
Argument33
"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】(此项可以省略)
论点：
论据：1.the fact that high levels of a certain metallic element exists in the bones found near the pots does not indicate the bones are from migrants who carried the pots.
         2.the arguer's assumption that the bones found near the pots are definitely from the migrants carrying the pots from other places is unwarranted.
         3.there is not evidence to prove that the pots have being transported from one place to another along with their owners.
【提纲】中文/英文            
【正文】
In this report, the arguer concludes that distinctively shaped ceramic pots being discovered at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration, not trade. To validate this point, he cites two evidences: 1.high levels of a certain metallic element are associated with people who migrated to a new place and 2.those elements were found at high levels in the bones near the pots.（直接按题目上的抄下来，不用paraphrase一下？） However, after rational analysis of those evidences the arguer seems to be not adequately cogent about his conclusion.

Firstly, the fact that high levels of a certain metallic element exists in the bones found near the pots does not indicate the bones are from migrants who carried the pots. It is entirely possible that the metallic element was contained in the local food naturally and the residents have higher-than-average volumes of the metallic element. What's more: Is this kind of metallic element merely affluent in some limited regions? If it is widely affluent in some eras, the assertion about the relationship between the amount of metallic element and the conclusion is open to question. In a word, more cogent evidences for the metallic element and the conclusion are required.

Even if it is proved that high levels of a certain metallic element are strongly associated with the migrants, the arguer's assumption that the bones found near the pots are definitely from the migrants carrying the pots from other places is unwarranted. Perhaps, the bones are not from the owner of the pots and possibly the owners of the bones are from different ages separately. In short there is not adequate proof showing the owners of the bones are the owners of the ancient pots.

Even assuming that the bones belong to the owners of the pots, there is not evidence to prove that the pots have being transported from one place to another along with their owners. They might purchase those pots locally and the technology of manufacturing this kind of pots is learnt by the local artists. In this case, it is not the people who make the distinctively shaped pots transmit but the technology.

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion about the way how the pots were spread is not validated. To support this point, he is required to provide more cogent and comprehensive evidence. For instance, the arguer must ensure the bones are from the owner carrying the pots from one place to another and deeper analysis of those bones is needed.（给的建议有些绝对，最好从论据方面给出例子。举例子后边建议再总结一句。）
这篇写的很好哇，结构完整，语言也不错，比35好多了。:loveliness: :loveliness: 就是有很多原文出现的句子，个人觉得还是p一下的好。分析的比较独到。这篇我觉得也不好破题，再讨论哈。加油~~~~:handshake :handshake ----露珠

zeyiwangUID: 2477176

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D3#pid1772214188