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

liuguaguaUID: 2569375

ARGUMENT33 - The following report appearedin an archaeology journal.
perfectattack
"The discovery of distinctively shapedceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has ledarchaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makersmigrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; othersbelieve the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place.Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle thedebate: high levels of a certain metallicelement contained in various foods are stronglyassociated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Manyof the bones found near the pots at a few sites showedhigh levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots werespread by migration, not trade."
×ÖÊý£º300         ÓÃʱ£º00:29:26         ÈÕÆÚ£º2009-1-11 20:44:41

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。

【提纲】
1) 史前人类骨骼的分析不一定可靠。因为毕竟能发现的史前人类骨骼是有限的，可靠性待定。一些遗迹的壶，不能代表所有的情况。还有一些壶周围没有有金属特征的人的骨头，所以就排除了是迁徙的可能性。prehistoric bones are not representative of all historic people.Some with other traits are missed for a long time
2) 错误推理：a. 多种食物都包含，不一定是A地特有的，可能B地也存在。也就是说B地人中发现有此元素，不能说明他们是从A处迁徙过来的。B. 正如开头说的那样，壶遍布各地，所以遗迹壶边上的人，尽管有着A地区的特征，但是可能不是A地区的人，或许B地区；可能不是壶的最初主人，有可能已经是壶的第二个买主。所以不能根据壶边上人的特征，来判断壶是迁徙来的。food with the high level of certain metallic element existsanywhere, which can undermine the author’s assumption
3) 非此即彼的错误：A. 不一定非此即彼，可能2种途径同时存在；比如A地区的人造好了，然后交易给B地区的人，B恰巧具有A的特征，然后B带着罐子到处跑。也有可能是是其它途径，比如遗落的。trade and migration can exist at the same time.
【正文】

The argument concluded that migration leadsto the distribution of ceramic pots instead of trade. In order to support hisconclusion, the author cites a prehistoric human skeletons’ analysis thatdiscovered that a special metallic elements in various foods relates withpeople who migrated to a new place after childhood. The author also points outmany of the bones near the pots in some places represented high degree ofmetallic elements. The argument seems reasonable at a first glance; however,close scrutiny about this evidence reveals that it leads little support for theauthor’s conclusion.

First of all, the author assumes theanalysis result is reliable to draw the conclusion. Yet, nor does the author provide any clear evidence that prehistoric bones are sufficiently large of allbones and representative. In addition, the author indicates that pots at a few sites near the bones contain a large amount of metallic element. ‘A few sites’means the discovered pots are limited and other pots elsewhere may have adifferent phenomenon. Lacking such evidence the author cannot convince me that thisanalysis can deal with the debate.

Secondly, the author overlooks somepossibilities which can weaken his conclusion. The first is that the certainmetallic elements contained in the food are very common in kaleidoscope places.If this is true, adult people with high level of metallic elements cannot becharacterized in one place. Thus, it strongly undermines the author’sconclusion about the strong relation between the essential elements and people.The second is that bones near the pots may not be the pot-makers despite of thehuge amount of elements. Perhaps, bones are the buyers of pots who are fortunatelywith the same elements as pot-makers. Or perhaps, bones are those people ontheir journeys to hunt and tourism and happen to die near the pots. Either of thesescenarios will cast on discredits about the conviction that it is the migrationinstead of trade leading to the spread of pots.   

Thirdly, the author asserts that migration andtrade are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author provides noreason for imposing an either/or choice. Trade and migration may spur thespread of pots. For instance, pot-makers migrated with the pots along with them to a new place and then traded the pots to another group of people with the high metallic elements coincidently. Vice visa. Without accounting for this possibility, the author cannotjustify his assertion that migration is responsible for the spread not othermethods.

In all, the argument is unpersuasive as itstands. The argument can be improved by providing evidence that the prehistoricbones and pots near a few sites are sufficient and representative. It could befurther improved by attest that the foods containing the metallic elements areunique in one place and the bones near the pots are the pot-makers. I also needto know that only migration leads to the pots spread instead of trade and other methods.

[ 本帖最后由 liuguagua 于 2009-1-15 00:29 编辑 ]