argument37 Palean Basket. 来晚了, 请狠拍

timminnUID：178272

37Woven 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 this argument, based on the discovery of a "Palean" basket in Lithos, the arguer claims that the Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. In this analysis, the author exhibits the two places' speration by a river and the necessity to use a boat to cross, which is lack of evidence. In addition, the arguer suggests no need for Palean to cross the river because of the abundant resources around them. At the first glance, this argument seems reasonable; however a careful examination will reveal some logical flaws in it.

To begin with, the arguer overemphasizes the difficulty to cross the Brim River. The arguer fails to present any evidence that the river was as broad and deep in ancient time as today. Nevertheless, common sense tells us that natural geographic environment changes tremendously as time passes. The river might be a small stream in the past, or there was no river at all. In this case, one could easily cross the river by swimming or even wading.

Secondly, the arguer denies the ability for Paleans to cross the river. Neither lack of evidence for boats in Palea nor the late appearance of large-capacity boat can exclude other transport forms acrossed the river.  It is entirely possible for the Palean to use a canoe or a raft, both of which are difficult to be reserved over a long history to develop into remain evidence. Besides, through a myriad of other means, the Palean could  shun the river by other approaches.

Thirdly, the natural abundance around Palea can not guarantee the Paleans had not crossed the river. The Palean might have to travel across the river to collect special but necessary foods other than those could be found in their area. Moreover, the arguer does not take into account marriages, trade activities or other social affairs between Lithos and Palea.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to rule out other possibilities of spreading of the Palean basket. It is very likely for some later people to take the basket from Palea to other places. Also, it is equally possible that the Lithos people could reach to Palea to collect and take back some baskets.

To sum up, the arguer's assumption that Paleans did not have boats and thus could not cross the river is totally unwarranted. Meanwhile, adequate and persuasive information should be provided to exclude any human activities across the river as well as the possible ways of distributing the baskets. Otherwise, the argument is not logical convincing as it stands.

[ Last edited by timminn on 2005-7-18 at 21:53 ]

afansoUID：177770

看完了你的文章 感觉写的挺好的
能不能看看我的文章 告诉我差距在哪里 谢谢 ：）

afansoUID：177770

In this argument, based on the discovery of a "Palean" basket in Lithos, the arguer claims that the Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. In this analysis与前面in this argument一起觉得别扭 可以有更好的方法, the author exhibits the two places' speration by a river你的意思是两个地方被river分开也是要攻击的么？我觉得这虽然在后面提到了，但写在开头段不太合适 and the necessity to use a boat to cross the river,别怕麻烦, which is lack of evidence. In addition, the arguer suggests no need for Palean to cross the river because of the abundant resources around them. At the first glance, this argument seems reasonable; however a careful examination will reveal some logical flaws in it.

To begin with, the arguer overemphasizes the difficulty to cross the Brim River. The arguer fails to present any evidence that the river was as broad and deep in ancient time as today. Nevertheless, common sense tells us that natural geographic environment changes tremendously as time passes. The river might be a small stream in the past, or there was no river at all. In this case, one could easily cross the river by swimming or even wading.

Secondly, the arguer denies the ability for Paleans to cross the river. Neither lack of evidence for boats in Palea nor the late appearance of large-capacity boat can exclude other transporttransportation forms acrossedcrossing? the river.  It is entirely possible for the Palean to use a canoe or a raft, both of which are difficult to be reserved over a long history to develop into remainremained evidence. Besides, through a myriad of other means, the Palean could  shun the river by other approaches.

Thirdly, the natural abundance around Palea can not guarantee thatthe Paleans had not crossed the river. The Palean might have to travel across the river to collect special but necessary foods other than those could be found in their area. Moreover, the arguer does not take into account marriages, trade activities or other social affairs between Lithos and Palea.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to rule out other possibilities of spreading of the Palean basket. It is very likely for some later people to take the basket from Palea to other places.你很喜欢用it is ...for...to do...这个句式，感觉有的地方该变一变，本文中我就见到好几处这个句式 Also, it is equally possible that the Lithos people could reach to Palea to collect and take back some baskets.如果你指的lithos 是后人的话，那么我感觉这句多余，不过不是大问题

To sum up, the arguer's assumption that Paleans did not have boats and thus could not cross the river is totally unwarranted. Meanwhile, adequate and persuasive information should be provided to exclude any human activities across the river as well as the possible ways of distributing the baskets. Otherwise, the argument is not logical convincing as it stands.
结尾很好，学习学习：）

总的来说 我不攻击他们周围食物丰富，是因为我觉得这个不是影响篮子过不过河的直接原因，或者说和此题无强关系
不会改文章，一点愚见，见笑了，希望今后继续互改，共同提高：）

timminnUID：178272

好的, 谢谢指出我不足的地方
我会尽力改进的