argument33 [sweetbox小组第四次作业] by sara

sara0522UID: 2336981

TOPIC: ARGUMENT33 - 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."
WORDS:393       TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-6-10 上午 12:53:53

The argument suffers from lots of fallacies which makes it unreasonable and unconvincing. Neither the fact that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood nor the evidence cited by the arguer that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high level of the metallic element can lend strong support to the argument. And after a detailed analysis as follows, we will find how groundless the argument is.

To start with, the arguer fails to establish a casual relation between the food and the high levels of the metallic element contained in the bones. That is to say, the arguer can not ensure that the metallic element is caused by the food, in other word; it is not evident that the owners of those bones had eaten those foods, which left some metallic element inside their bones. There are lots of other factors that could have lead to the same results. For example, the water they drank was gotten from the same river and the soil of the whole area contains the same metallic element that will penetrate bones. Unless the arguer can show evidence to show the casual relationship between the two, the claim is doubtable.

Secondly, even if we concede that the metallic element has something to do with the food there, the high level of the metallic element contain in the bones still does not necessarily mean that the pots were spread by migration instead of trade. Firstly, the owners of those bones probably eat some food containing high level of a certain metallic element in their hometown. One possibility is that their hometown grows that food, too. The other is, the food was spread to their places by trade. And when they came to the new places (those prehistoric sites), it was entirely possible that they met some natural disaster or massacre and then they died there. The reasoning above can better illustrate why bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. So, the absence of detailed information still makes the argument unpersuasive.

In sum, the arguer fails to provide detailed and strong evidence to support his/her claims. And before many questions answered, we should not reach to any conclusion.

无语了,又不会写ARGU了~~~~~~

小破孩UID: 2125288

The argument suffers from lots of fallacies which makes it unreasonable and unconvincing. Neither the fact that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood nor the evidence cited by the arguer that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high level of the metallic element can lend strong support to the argument. 感觉开头不要用太长的句子吧~~其实分成两句都是倒装感觉也不错~~~我有的时候句子也写的特长And after a detailed analysis as follows, we will find how groundless the argument is.

To start with, the arguer fails to establish a casual relation between the food and the high levels of the metallic element contained in the bones. 不是很知道这点批偏不偏，不知道这点算不算和有的survey相似，实在没写的了再批。关于这个看一下以前关于survey的东东吧That is to say, the arguer can not ensure that the metallic element is caused by the food, in other word; it is not evident that the owners of those bones had eaten those foods, which left some metallic element inside their bones. There are lots of other factors that could have lead to the same results. For example, the water they drank was gotten from the same river and the soil of the whole area contains the same metallic element that will penetrate bones. Unless the arguer can show evidence to show the casual relationship between the two, the claim is doubtable.

Secondly, even if we concede that the metallic element has something to do with the food there, the high level of the metallic element contained in the bones still does not necessarily mean that the pots were spread by migration instead of trade. Firstly, the owners of those bones probably eat some food containing high level of a certain metallic element in their hometown. One possibility is that their hometown grows that food, too. 这两句好像合成一句好一点 On one hand, the food eaten may widely grow both in his hometown and the place where the pots were discovered. On the other hand, the food itself was spread instead.The other is, the food was spread to their places by trade. And when they (who?)came to the new places (those prehistoric sites), it was entirely possible that they met some natural disaster or massacre and then they died there. The reasoning(s) above can better illustrate why bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. So, the absence of detailed information still makes the argument unpersuasive.

In sum, the arguer fails to provide detailed (detail?) and strong evidence to support his/her claims. And before many questions answered, we should not reach to any conclusion.



感觉这篇写得有点匆忙哦，嗬嗬，不过我还没及时呢，写出来的肯定更滥
可能如果批驳的点再强化一些会更好噢，加油加油
拍拍我的~~~

sara0522UID: 2336981

好的,我静下心来再想一下这篇,谢谢啦~~~~