求回拍 33题题目就看不懂，也想不出攻击点，请指点。这是第一次写。

芷琳UID: 2682149

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."




The author claims that pots were spread by migration, not trade. To prop up his claim he relies on the result of analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons. Careful scrutiny of the providing evidence ,however, reveals that it lends little credible support to his claim,

First of all, the author substantiates that the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Yet we are not informed that this element was unique in this area , so It is entirely possible that it existed in many other places. If this is the case , these bones found may be possessed by people who had come from different region. Thereby ,the author cannot convince me these people came to the area near the pots and settled here after childhood.

Secondly, even if the author affirms that bones near the pots belong to people who lived in the same place in the same year. It is also possible that these people did not immigrate here ,they may pass by instead because of business or other factors ,but died due to diseases, thereby leaving the pots here. In this case ,the pots were still not brought here though people’ migration.

Finally, since the report fails to account for explanation for the bones’ origin, similarly, the author cannot explain the pots’ source. In this way ,the author unfairly negative the possibility that the pots were spread by trade. Since the author fails to rule out this factor, I cannot accept the conclusion about migration.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore not credible as it stands. To convince me that the pots were spread by migration rather than trade, author should either provide more information about the distribution of the metallic element and the circumstance when the pots were found., or explanation why those bones exited around the pots.