Argument33【0906G 文以载道三月四月作文小组】第1周第1作业 by timon_hacuna

timon_hacunaUID: 2534867

Argument 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.
'在广泛区域分散分布的很多史前遗迹发现的形状独特的陶壶导致考古学家提出疑问：这些壶是如何流传的？有些人相信壶的制造者迁移到别的地方并把壶随之带来；另一些人相信壶是通过贸易流传的，而他们的制造者留在一个地方。现在，对于史前人类骨骼的分析可以解决这个争论: 在多种食物中都含有的某种金属元素的高含量与那些成年后移居到新地方的人有很高的关联性。在一些遗迹的壶附近发现的很多骨头都显示出这种金属元素的高含量。因此，这些壶肯定是通过迁徙而不是贸易来流传的。


寄托金枝分析：
事实A1：某种特定的金属元素会伴随在童年后迁徙的人们。
事实A2：罐子附近的许多骨头均含有某特定金属元素。（隐含的中间结论B：罐子附近的骨头主人是迁徙而来的）
结论C：罐子是被迁徙传播的，而非贸易(A1+A2)------>B----->C

注意到A1、A2均是事实之后，明白攻击点在arguer建立的错误的因果关系。

驳斥点如下：

1：(A1+A2)------>B：骨头里有着种元素的人们可能是原住民，未必经过迁徙。即便在不同sites，也很有可能在不同sites均有含有该金属元素的食物存在，使得这些原住民的骨头都含有该元素。
2：B----->C：即便这些骨头的主人都不是原住民，也无法证明这些骨头的主人同时是罐子的主人。一方面，骨头和罐子是否同时代未提供。另一方面，这些骨头很可能来自不同的、食用含有该元素的食物的地方，而这些地方很可能不是罐子的产地。人们虽然是迁徙而来的，但很可能跟罐子完全没有关系。（注意到many的用词，many意味着不是all，意味着有some不含有该元素，可以假定那些才是真正罐子主人的骨头）
3：B----->C：即便这些骨头的主人也是罐子的主人，也未必能够证明罐子是迁徙而来的。这些人的死因不详，有可能是在狩猎、远行、战争中死亡，罐子作为随身物品，也遗留在死亡处。

因此，说罐子一定随迁徙传播是草率的

The author recommends that the pots were spread by migration, not trade. To support this assertion the author cites 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. And many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. However, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

The major problem with this argument is that the writer takes it for granted that the bones found at some of the sites were migrated just because of their high level of the metallic element. It is possible that this metallic element exist in various sites. So we cannot tell that the owners of the bones are from the same place. And maybe this element is of high level in the local food. Thus the bones are of local people.

Even if the bones are migrated here. It is still uncertain whether they were the owners of the pots. On one hand, the author does not offer any information about the time of the pots and bones, they may of different eras. On the other hand, the bones and pots may come from different places where foods are of high level of the metallic element. People migrated here, but they have nothing to do with the pots. And many of the bones do not mean all of the bones, there are some not containing the element, maybe they are the real owner of the pots.

Besides, the cause of the bone owners’ death is not sure yet. So if they owned the pots, it cannot prove that the pots were spread by migration. These guys may died of hiking、war or whatever. When they died, the pots were with them, but they were not spread by migration.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration. Such as the era of the bones and pots, the relationship of bones and pots and better ways to prove that the bones are not of local people. If the argument includes these given factors it would have been thorough and adequate.



[ 本帖最后由 timon_hacuna 于 2009-1-14 14:05 编辑 ]