Argument37 同主题，阿狗难题之一

ZEALPALADINUID: 192560

Argument37: 364 words   30 minutes
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.

In the argument, the speaker contends that Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To support his or her conclusion, the speaker provide the information that Palean people could not cross the deep and broad Brim River and reach Lithos, since there is no evidence that Paleans had boats. In addition, the speaker claims that there is no need for Paleans to the river due to the abandant food supply in Palea. I find several critical fallacies in the argument through close examination.

The first problem in the argument is that the speaker fails to prove that Paleans could not cross the Brim River. One the one hand, there is no evidence that Paleans had boats cannot ensure that Paleans had no boats. It is possible that Paleans had boats but the evidence has been extinct or not found by the archeologists. Furthermore, boats capable of carrying groups of people were not invented until the disappearance of Paleans cannot prove that Palean people had no boats,either. As a matter of fact, Paleans may have small boats like caneoes or rafts that can carry them to cross the river. On the other hand, given that Paleans had no boats, the speaker does not exclude the other possible ways, such as something like bridges, to cross the river.

The second problem in the argument is that the speaker fails to take into account the possiblity that Paleans may cross the river for other needs besides foods. Common sense informs us that business or trade can be a prime need to ancient people to march a long distance. Lithos people may have crafts that Paleans do not have or vice versor. Consequently, it is necessary for Paleans to travel through the river to exchange goods with Lithos people. Additionally, marriage can also compel Paleans to cross the river and then bring the basket to Lithos.

To sum up, the speaker's assumption that Paleans had no boats and thus cannot cross the Brim River is totally unwarranted. Moreover, the speaker fails to convince us that the only need Paleans to travel to Lithos is for foods. To better evaluate the argument, we need more direct evidence that can deny the possibilities that Paleans are capable to cross the river and need to reach Lithos.

[ Last edited by ZEALPALADIN on 2005-7-6 at 22:22 ]

esmeirasUID: 202885

Argument 37
In the argument, the speaker contends that Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To support his or her( his 就够了)  conclusion, the speaker provide （provided or provide） the information that Palean people could not cross the deep and broad Brim River and (to ) reach Lithos, since there is no evidence that Paleans had boats. In addition, the speaker claims that there is no need for Paleans to the river due to the abandant food supply in Palea. I find several critical fallacies in the argument through close examination.

The first problem in the argument is that the speaker fails to prove that Paleans could not cross the Brim River. One the( the 去掉) one hand, there is no evidence that Paleans had boats cannot ensure that Paleans had no boats（ 中国式英语，不懂 猜应该是 there is no evidence to show that Peleans had no boat . no 是否定词，后面的名词必须是单数）. It is possible that Paleans had boats but the evidence has been extinct or not found by the archeologists （evidence 太多了吧）. Furthermore, boats capable of carrying groups of people were not invented until the disappearance of Paleans cannot prove that Palean people had no boats,either. As a matter of fact, Paleans may have small boats like caneoes （canoes） or rafts that can carry them to cross the river. On the other hand, given that Paleans had no boats, the speaker does not exclude the other possible ways, such as something like bridges, to cross the river.(这一句我喜欢)

The second problem in the argument is that the speaker fails to take into account the possiblity（复数） that Paleans may cross the river for other needs besides foods. Common sense informs us that business or trade can be a prime need to ancient people to march a long distance. Lithos people may have crafts that Paleans do not have or vice versor （ 反之亦然是vice versa ）. Consequently, it is necessary for Paleans to travel through the river to exchange goods with Lithos people. Additionally, marriage can also compel Paleans to cross the river and then bring the basket to Lithos. （连续两段的结尾句都很经典哈：）  ）

To sum up, the speaker's assumption that Paleans had no boats and thus cannot cross the Brim River is totally unwarranted. Moreover, the speaker fails to convince us that the only need Paleans to travel to Lithos is for foods. To better evaluate the argument, we need more direct evidence that can deny the possibilities that Paleans are capable to cross the river and need to reach Lithos.

结构清晰，但，贴在word 里是祖国江山一片红。 有些错误相信是细心检查能避免的。 请以后留心。
今天拍了4，5篇了。。。~~~~体力不支,  冒犯之处望包含
这篇俺还没写，等写好了楼主再猛回拍哈：）

ZEALPALADINUID: 192560

感谢esmeiras的点评，有需要批改的作文请PM给我：）

esmeirasUID: 202885

刚刚写完:)
明早改改先:)
觉得虽没有50痛苦,可也够难受>_<

esmeirasUID: 202885

Argument37
In this argument, the arguer claims that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To support the claim, the arguer pointed out that the Brim river is very deep and broad, and the boats capable of carrying groups of people and goods were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. In addition, the arguer reasons that Paleans did not need to cross the river for they had enough food to feed on. However, this argument is unconvincing for the following four reasons.

First of all, although the author pointed out that the Brim River is deep and broad now, he didn't mention that the river was deep and wide in the past, too. If the river was narrow and shallow at Palean's time but widened and deepened by the geographic changes during thousands of years later on, the Paleans could have managed to cross the river at their time. Thus, the mere fact that the Brim River is wide and deep now is insufficient to conclude that the Paleans couldn't cross the river in the past.

Secondly, the fact that Paleans did not have boats to carry on groups of people and cargo does not lend strong support to the claim that the Palean-baskets were not unique in Palean.  Even if Paleans did not have boats to carry on groups of people and cargo, they could have smaller boats, canoes and rafts which could carry few people on it. Who said that only big boats can carry people to cross a river, and small canoes can not?  In this sense, with the help of small canoes and rafts, the Paleans might have crossed the Brim River.
Thirdly, Paleans did not need to cross the river for food doesn't mean they were not pushed to cross the river for other purposes. For example, the Paleans might want to change goods with Lithos. What’s more, marriages could also have been a driving force.

Finally, the basket might have floated to the opposite side of the river by chance. Maybe a Palean dropped her basket in the river, and later the basket flowed to the opposite bank and picked up by a Litho. In this case, the basket was still originally made by Paleans, and Lithos simply colleted it. The only fact that a similar Palea basket was found in Litho could not conclude Lithos made  Palean baskets too. If Lithos made that basket, the tools for making baskets and other similar baskets should have been found to support the arguer’s assertion.

In conclusion, the argument has not succeeded in disapproving that the Palean basket were unique in Palean. To support the argument, the historical data about the Brim River should be checked out. Furthermore, the arguer should expel other factors and pushes that could have enabled the Paleans to cross the river. Besides, other possibilities for a Palean basket to reach the Iitho bank should also be excluded.

ZEALPALADINUID: 192560

逻辑错误挑的差不多了

Secondly, the fact that Paleans did not have boats to carry on groups of people and cargo does not lend strong support to the claim that the Palean-baskets were not unique in Palean.这个段主要是说P人是否有其他样式的船可以过河的问题，直接联系到篮子有点突兀，主题句应该改下

另外第四段似乎太少字了，如果没时间展开说的话可以考虑把它并入上一段了

语言表达上没看出什么问题，如果是没有看同主题的分析，写成这样是相当不错了，加油！

esmeirasUID: 202885

3q!