argument37 期待互拍

chengenhuiUID: 200271

Argument37  
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Palean. To support the conclusion, the author points out evidence that ancient Paleans couldn't cross the Brim River which today is very deep and broad. In addition ,he indicates that there is no need for the ancient Paleans to cross the river ,since nowadays wood around Palea are full of nuts ,berries, and small game. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion, nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. The author ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several flaw, as discussed follow.

In the first place, the author assumes that past conditions remain unchangeable. In the title, we know that the Brim River is very deep and broad, and without boat, people can't cross it. But we wonder whether the river was deep and broad in ancient times. The author failed to provide sufficient evidences to support the opinion. It is entirely possible that the river was very narrow and shallow, or even the river hadn't formed, people can cross it without any tools.

In the second place, if we concede that the river was deep and broad in ancient times, the author get a conclusion that ancient Paleans couldn't cross the river based on that there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. Since ancient Palean lived in the era long long ago, it is possible that the evidences that they had boats were lost, or haven't been founded by archaeologists. And maybe the ancient Paleans are good at swimming; they can cross the river by swim. Furthermore, the author cited that boats carrying many people and cargo developed thousands of years later, while it's quite possible that the ancient people have invented canoe, by which they could also cross the river.

Last but not least, the author considers that the ancient Palean needn't cross the river since there are sufficient foods around their residence. The author obviously has a trend to underestimate the ancient people, who crossed the river only for seeking food. Maybe there are many other reasons for the ancient Palean to cross the river. For example, the land across the river was more fecund, and it is equally possible that the farm tools in Lithos were more advanced; they always needed to cross the river to change the tools with their baskets or other craftworks.

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 cites in analysis the evidence which does not lead strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more evidence that in other places many baskets of this kind also were founded, and so on . If the argument includes the given factor guessed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-17 at 23:19 ]

czzbUID: 208982

Argument37  
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Palean. To support the conclusion, the author points out evidence that ancient Paleans couldn't [could not 不要用缩写]cross the Brim River which today is very deep and broad. In addition ,he indicates that there is no need for the ancient Paleans to cross the river ,since nowadays wood around Palea are full of nuts ,berries, and small game. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion, nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. The author ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several flaw, as discussed follow.

In the first place, the author assumes that past conditions remain unchangeable. In the title, we know that the Brim River is very deep and broad, and without boat, people can't cross it. But we wonder whether the river was deep and broad in ancient times[as deep and broad in acient times as now]. The author failed to provide sufficient evidences to support the opinion. It is entirely possible that the river was very narrow and shallow, or even the river hadn't formed, people can[could] cross it without any tools.

In the second place, if we concede that the river was deep and broad in ancient times, the author get a conclusion that ancient Paleans couldn't cross the river based on that there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. Since ancient Palean lived in the era long long ago, it is possible that the evidences that they had boats were lost, or haven't been founded by archaeologists. And maybe the ancient Paleans are good at swimming; they can cross the river by swim. Furthermore, the author cited that boats carrying many people and cargo developed thousands of years later, while it's quite possible that the ancient people have invented canoe, by which they could also cross the river.

Last but not least, the author considers that the ancient Palean needn't cross the river since there are sufficient foods around their residence. The author obviously has a trend to underestimate [这个用的不太恰当吧]the ancient people, who crossed the river only for seeking food. Maybe there are many other reasons for the ancient Palean to cross the river. For example, the land across the river was more fecund, and it is equally possible that the farm tools in Lithos were more advanced; they always needed to cross the river to change the tools with their baskets or other craftworks.

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 cites in analysis the evidence which does not lead strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more evidence that in other places many baskets of this kind also were founded, and so on . If the argument includes the given factor guessed above, it would have been more thorough and ade


我觉得你还应该再强调一下，这些不能排除P人过河的情况是为了说明P人可以把东西带过去

还有一些点你可以提一下 开头结尾可以适当精简 比如可能是后人挖掘后把东西带过去的 或者L人有boat

chengenhuiUID: 200271

多谢你的建议，我会适当修改的 ：）