argument33 [smile]小组第三次作业

枫晰UID: 2123661

The arguer concludes that the spread of the pots discovered at various prehistoric sites contributes to the migration of pot markers, not the trade, in which case their makers remain in one place. To justify this conclusion, the arguer is based on an analysis of the bones found near the pots at few sites. However, the conclusion is so hasty that may mask the real facts.

In the first place, the arguer falsely assumed that the show of the high levels of metallic elements in bones indicate that the individuals who have such bones must migrate to a new place after childhood. according the argument, the arguer just assert the existing relationship between the high levels of metallic element containing in various foods and the individual migrating to a new place after childhood, but the arguer falsely assumed that the high levels will affect the human body and even accumulate in the bones. Ironically, it is entirely possible that the high levels maybe only target on the blood. Further more ,even if the high levels will be showed in bones, the arguer fails to ruling out other possibilities, such as living conditions, environments, the water and food they drink and eat, etc.,that may also contribute to the accumulation in bones. For example, if one who often drinking the water abundant in such metallic element may also result in the accumulation in the bones day after day .If so, there is no causal relationship between high levels and the migration of all the adults.

Even if the relationship between high levels and the migration of all the adults, we cannot draw out the conclusion, for the arguer simply equates all the adult migrator with the pot maker, It is entirely possible that the merchant who brought the pot from its original producing place to that sites to sell may finally settle down, if so, the bones abundant in metallic elements cannot be considered as an evidence of the conclusion. In addition, we may ask that the bones found near the pots at a few sites are really the bones of the prehistoric human? If not, it will also deny the conclusion.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the arguer must provide more information about the affection between the high levels of metallic element containing in various foods and the individual migrating to a new place after childhood, and other possible evidences that can more effective to support the conclusion.

写的太郁闷了
有拍必回

xinxinwUID: 2144273

The arguer concludes that the spread of the pots discovered at various prehistoric sites contributes to the migration of pot markers, not the trade, in which case their makers remain in one place. To justify this conclusion, the arguer is based on an analysis of the bones found near the pots at few sites. However, the conclusion is so hasty that may mask the real facts.

In the first place, the arguer falsely assumed that the show（show用得不好） of the high levels of metallic elements in bones indicate that the individuals who have such bones must migrate to a new place after childhood. according the argument, the arguer just assert the existing relationship between the high levels of metallic element containing in various foods and the individual migrating to a new place after childhood, but the arguer falsely assumed that the high levels will affect the human body and even accumulate in the bones. Ironically, it is entirely possible that the high levels maybe only target on the blood.表达有问题 Further more ,even if the high levels用high levels只待很别扭阿 will be showed in bones, the arguer fails to ruling （rule）out other possibilities, such as living conditions, environments, the water and food they drink and eat, etc.,that may also contribute to the accumulation in bones. For example这个for example完全没有必要，跟前面一句话完全重复, if one who often drinking the water abundant in such metallic element may also result in the accumulation in the bones day after day .If so, there is no causal relationship between high levels and the migration of all the adults.

Even if the relationship between high levels and the migration of all the adults, we cannot draw out the conclusion, for the arguer simply equates all the adult migrator with the pot maker, It is entirely possible that the merchant who brought the pot from its original producing place to that sites to sell may finally settle down, if so, the bones abundant in metallic elements cannot be considered as an evidence of the conclusion.这里的逻辑关系是什么？ In addition, we may ask that the bones found near the pots at a few sites are really the bones of the prehistoric human? If not, it will also deny the conclusion.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the arguer must provide more information about the affection between the high levels of metallic element containing in various foods and the individual migrating to a new place after childhood, and other possible evidences that can more effective to support the conclusion.

行文不是很严谨，用词不规范。很多自己衍生出来的概念，比如maker, 作者根本没提到过