Argument37[快刀杀鸡]7/25 作业 by ajohnares

ajohnaresUID: 2661147

题目：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.


The arguer alleges that the Palean baskets, characterized by a particular distinctive pattern, were actually not unique to Palea. To bolster this claim, the arguer cites the evidence that such a "Palean" basket has been discovered in Lithos, an ancient village that is seperate from Palea by a deep and broad river--the Brim River. The arguer further assumes that, with sufficient food resources, the Paleans would have found it unnecessary to cross the river. As I see it, this argument is logically flawed for several respects.

First, the arguer fails to provide substantiate evidence to prove his assumption that the Paleans would have had no need to cross the Brim River. Although the woods around Palea, as cited in the argument, are full of nuts, berries, and small game, it is entirely possible that the residents in Palea would not have their needs satiated and would like to explore the conterminous places. Perhaps they made a merchantile connection with the people in Lithos, selling them baskets and purchasing other stuff unavailable in Palea. Or they simply used the baskets as receptacles to carry commodity and the craftmen in Lithos intimate the pattern. Without ruling out these alternative explanations, the auger cannot postulate that the Paleans would not cross the river for sakes of any reason.

Second, the arguer merely provides the current circumstances of the Brim River, which is claimed to be deep and broad and impossible for ancient Paleans to cross. Commen sense informs us that enormous geographic alteration may have taken place during a long span of time. The river might appear to be different from the one existent today. Even though there is no chance that the Paleans learned to build boats, they might find it easy to cross the river without assistance of implements, like by means of fording or swimming. If so, it is totally possible for the Paleans to transport their baskets to the other side of the river.

Third, even if we assume that the river has been deep and broad invariably, especially in the ancient ages, we are not informed whether there is other access to transporting from Palean to Lithos. Perhaps the Paleans detoured and circumvented the river, finding other routes to arrive at Lithos. If this is true, the claim made by the arguer will be further undermined.

In sum, without providing enough cogent evidence and justifying those specious assumptions, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the arguer needs to investigate the scope of the lives of Palean people, in order to ensure that they never presented on the other side of the river. Moreover, he/she also needs to provide relevant evidence that the Paleans were not able to cross the river.