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

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，作者没有证据表明其他原因不能导致骨头里这种元素含量高。比如吃含这种元素的食物。如果这种可能性存着的话，很可能当地人骨头里这种元素含量也高。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

【自改后作文提纲】

1. 作者将因果关系与单纯的关联关系混淆，首先，作者没有证据表明其他原因不能导致骨头里这种元素含量高。比如吃含这种元素的食物。如果这种可能性存着的话，很可能当地人骨头里这种元素含量也高。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. 壶旁边的骨头不一定是壶的所有者.

3. 即使人是迁移的，而且是所有者，也不能排除壶是买来的。交易和移民可以同时进行。

4. at a few sites 不具代表性

【正文】(绿色为自改后的段落)

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.
(开头段简明扼要，简单论述了材料中的结论和论据，我个人觉得论据讲得单一了一点，不过也没有太大的关系，因为正文段落会对论据集中论述)

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(amounts) 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.(scant用得不错，但是amout to是什么意思？根据上下文，应该是“基于”这类意思，但我没有找到这种用法，希望可以发个例句，可以试试stem from，北美范文上面的词) 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(可以再讲得具体一点，这样讲有点抽象，比如：by other factors as well,which are much more affluent in these sites where pots were found than the other sites geographically). The report has not counted the possibility that high levels of the metallic element is caused of/due to eating migrated animals in which  the levels of metallic element which contains(contained,两个从句有点绕) 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.(not be sustained logically and lack credibility to a certain extent.感觉说得太狠了，话说得太绝就容易有漏洞，攻击人家也不要太绝对了)

此段原来的逻辑有问题，重新理了一遍，改写为：
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(amounts) to scant evidence of the assumption that the former is contributable --at least partly--to the latter.The report fails to take into account other possibilities which might result in high levels of the element in bones. According to common sense, it is entirely possible that the high levels are due to accumulation of this metallic element by eating foods . As various foods contain this metallic element, it is entirely possible that bones from the local residents will also show high levels of the element, in which case, the report's assumption that these bones are from migrators is unconvincing.

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(在其他地方看到了一个另外的表达法：the bones are not contemporary with the pots) which will render(rendering, 这样要简捷一些) the conclusion based apon the assumption unpersuasive.

Secondly, the conclusion depends on another unsubstantiated assumption that the bones found near the pots are from the  owners. The possibility that the bones are not contemporary with the pots  renders the conclusion based apon the unsubstantiated assumption unpersuasive.

Thirdly, even(even if) the bones do come from the owners, the authors(report,个人认为对于所给的材料的称谓应该统一一下，前面都在说report，这里突然变了，有点摸不着头脑) fails to provide any reliable evidence that the owners are also the makers. The report unfairly exclude(excludes) 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.

Thirdly，even assuming the bones do belong to the owners, the two processes-trade and migration-are not necessarily ambivalent. It is quite possible that the two processes are simultaneously accounting for the spread of pots scattered in large areas.There is not cogent evidence to rule out the possibility that the pots are spread by trade. However, the arguer fails to take this into consideration and arrive a hasty generalization on a groundless and uncertain analysis, which cannot bear further investigation and observation.


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(可以直接去掉) conclusion that the pots were spread by migration.(这一段不错)

In sum, the conclusion relies on some 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/state 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. (结尾段没有什么问题)



[ 本帖最后由 susanner 于 2009-1-15 22:46 编辑 ]