0910G[North America Flying]Argument37 by FarseeR

ystyleUID: 2454212

写得还是有些草，很赶时间。。。希望楼下多提些意见
TOPIC: ARGUMENT37 - Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river-the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.
WORDS: 421          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009/7/23 17:41:56

The arguer claims that the baskets from Palea, a prehistoric village, were not unique. To justify his conclusion, the author points out that another "Palean" basket was discovered in Lithos, an ancient village next to Palea. He or she also cites that the river between the two villages is too difficult for people to pass through. Moreover, people living in Palea seem have no reason to go to other places for their life there sounds perfect. However, close scrutiny of this argument reveals it contains several flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, the arguer mistakes that objects stay constant through history when considering the situation of Brim River around Palea. He or she holds that the river is deep and broad now and assumes that all conditions upon this river are remained the same from the past, which is unwarranted. Perhaps the river near these old towns were at one time shallow and narrow, and turned to what is like today because of the geology influence, such as the blowing of winds or the washing of rains. Without taking into account all these constantly changing factors, the author cannot convince that the river was once an obstacle for the communicating of the people from two villages.

Secondly, the author also commits a fallacy of hasty generalization in stating the assumption that there is no boat capable for the villagers to get across the river. Maybe there is just no boat available of carrying crowds of people or cargo, but it is still possible that villagers could just float on the river in a raft or build a small boat, which could carry less people than the author expects, and reach the other bank of the river. Unless the author rules out all other possibilities that for the villages to get across the river, can we believe his or her conclusion.

Finally, the author also emphasizes that the living environment sounds great near Palea and villagers there would have had no need to cross the river. After much consideration, we will notice that it lacks conviction for it is only food that we know the village does not lack of. Perhaps they are in a shortage of silk and therefore have the necessity to get it from people living in Lithos with some trading. The author should considering more situations.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing and unpersuasive. To bolster it, the arguer should provide us more detailed information about the conditions of Palea at that special time. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.