[a习作temp] Argument33【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 by curylnne [复制链接]

curylynne
UID: 2319354

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 187
注册时间: 2007-3-25
精华: 0
帖子: 6

发表于 2009-1-12 23:49:52 |显示全部楼层

【题目】Arguement33

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。
【正文】
According to this argument, the author considers that the pots were spread by mirgation.
Showing this finding of the prehistoric human bones contained a certain metallic element
which were widely in the food those people had. However, the fact that mints of the bones
found near the pots that indicated high quantity metallic element does not necessarily prove
that the pots were diffused via migration, not trade. There are several flaws in this argument
that can not demonstrate the conclusion very clearly.

First of all, the author made a fallacy in problematic assumption in the evidence to support the
conclusion. As it mentioned in the argument, the author gives the proof that a certain
metallic element have greatly correlation with migrator who were moved after childhood. But
it does not have any direct evidences to testify that the food has the metallic element only
ate by the group of pots' maker. The author supposes the hypothesis that the handicraftsman is
equal to the relocatee after childhood. The argument lacks sufficient facts to make sure that
the people who moved after childhood equates makers.

Furthermore, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the fact that prehistoric
human bones which found around the pots within high concentrations of metallic element and the pots
were spread by mirgation. This argument, nonetheless ,is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of the bones contain metallic element near the pots site and the presumptuous correlation accordingly is
unacceptable. Considering the result of the argument, the author acquiesces the suppose that the metallic
element must subside in human's bones, even so, evidence is not provide. Actually, it is equally possible that the pots were spread by trade and the bones were not
belong to the ceramic makers. In a word, the conclusion made by the author with not enough
data.

On the whole, the argument given merely little proof to demonstrate it's notion. Moreover, the
author commits some logical flaws in statement, such as ,problematic assumption and cause-effect fallacy.
Therefore, the passage need much more amend by supply more data about the relationship between the people
who mirgated after childhood and the metallic element.

真是不好意思，现在才贴，昨天忙着。一直到晚上才熬出第一篇。。。。

写的不好，大家见谅啊。
我提交的晚了。。。而且貌似还差一篇。
明天晚上补上。因为，明天早上要参加招聘会。呃。。。。神啊，请多给我点时间吧！

[ 本帖最后由 curylynne 于 2009-1-13 15:35 编辑 ]

[a习作temp] Argument33【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 by curylnne [复制链接]

回复 #2 wsgg 的帖子

回复 #4 yuzhirenzhe 的帖子