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

忍者无敌UID: 2562064

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

题目：ARGUMENT33 - 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。提纲：
1.壶的流传还有其他的流传方式：比如说通过学习。
2.骨头里有着种元素的人们可能是原住民，未必经过迁徙。即便在不同sites，也很有可能在不同sites均有含有该金属元素的食物存在，使得这些原住民的骨头都含有该元素。即便这些骨头的主人都不是原住民，也无法证明这些骨头的主人同时是罐子的主人。3.发现骨骼的地点本身就是a few，证据不足够。并且应当考虑这些sites的分布。

In this argument, the author tells us that the distinctive spread ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area were spread by migration. To substantiate his views, the author provides two aspects of evidence. One is the link between the foods which contain high levels of a certain metallic element and the migrants. The other is high levels of the metallic element was contained in the bones found near the pots at a few sites. Although it seems that author's view is right, this argument is unconvincing for some flaws actually.

Firstly, the author evidently ignores other possibilities of the way through which the pots were spread except for trade or migration, such as learning. For example, some people who learned and acquired the technics of the pots at the original place went back hometown and made them independently.The author should provide more convincing evidence to rule out other probability to support the persuasion of the argument.

Secondly, the bones near the pots do not be cited they belong to the migrants who carry the pots. Maybe they are the native's bones.They lived in different sites, there is also possibility that the certain metallic element of the foods existed in these sites . And even though the bones do not all belong to the native, it still hardly proves that bones belong to the people who had the pots. One reason is that the author fails to demonstrate that the bones and the pots are in the same period. Another reason is that these bones possibly belong to the people who come from different places where foods contained the certain metallic element. And the pots may not be produced from these places. In other words, although there was a group of migrants, it seems not having the relationship with the producing of the pots. The author fails to taking into account these factors and offer inadequate evidence to rule out them.

Finally, not only the number and the distribution of the a few sites where many bones found near the pots, but also the amount of the pots are unknown. The statistics cited as evidence is too insufficient to justify the claim.  To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis is not enough and comprehensive to support what the arguer maintains. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidences to eliminate the above potential situations

[ 本帖最后由 忍者无敌 于 2009-1-15 21:42 编辑 ]