YB-1]7月12日作业by wangerdai

wangerdaiUID: 2586666

Argument 37 In this argument, the arguer advocates that so-call Palean baskets were not unique to Palean. To support this view, the arguer mentions that such "Palean" basket was found in Litho, another village across the Brim River from Palean. Moreover, the author points out that it is impossible for Palean people to cross the river. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows. In the first place, the arguer assumes that the Brim River was very deep and broad in the prehistoric time. However, the geologic situation at that time would probably not the same as the situation now. Although the Brim River is deep and broad now, it is not equal to the river is deep and broad at that time as well. Perhaps, there is no river at that time. Or perhaps, this is just a small stream at that time. As a result, it will be easy for the Palean people to come across this river. Moreover, even if there was a big river at that time, the assumption that the Palean people had no boat is also questionable. Perhaps they could across the river by canon or wooden craft. Without given such possibilities into account, we cannot draw any firm conclusion that Palean people cannot cross the river. Even if the ancient Palean people cannot cross the river, only one basket in Litho cannot lead to a strong and direct conclusion. Perhaps this basket is only coincidently dropped into the river and drifted down into another side of river, thus caught up by the Lithos people. At the same time, the Lithos people still cannot produce this particular pattern by themselves. Only more and more baskets are found in Lithos can make the assumption reasonable. Last but not least, the author assumes that there was no need for the Palean people to cross the river because they had enough food. However, there still are lots of other factors which would stimulate the Palean people to cross the river. Perhaps they had to cross the river to hunt big animals for furs. Or perhaps they had to cross the river to trade for salt and other necessary things with other villagers. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely. To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cites in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make it more convincing, more information concerning the condition of river in ancient should be given. To better evaluate the argument, the author should take more possibilities into account.