argument33 Smil-A组第三次作业

EmmanuelleUID: 2231740

我觉得这次题目很难写啊。错误不难找，就是想不好顺序，感觉全在一块了。所以写得挺混乱，大家狠批吧，帮我理理思路。先谢谢啦！:)

TOPIC: ARGUMENT33 - The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."

In this argument, the speaker recommends that those pots discovered at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration not trade. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites an analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons. However, the analysis contains several flaws and poor assumptions, rendering it unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the author provides no evidence that the sample is reliable. In order to establish a strong correlation between highly contained metallic element and people who migrated to a new place after childhood the analysis’s sample must be sufficient in size and can be representative overall. But no information of this analysis has been given. Instead the scientists only study those bones found near the pots. Perhaps a large number of bones which are not near pots do not contain the metallic element at all and a small number of pots can not be used to generalize the whole circumstance. Lacking evidence of a proper sample, the author cannot justifiably draw any convincing conclusion relying on the research.

Secondly, a hasty correlation between the metallic element and people migrating to a new place is built without enough proof. The author cites that the bones found near the pots at a few sites show high levels of metallic element in order to illustrate that those people who made the pots are the makers and transferred the pots by migration. The assumption is that these people were living together eating the food in their childhood. However, perhaps the bones found near the pots are not of human’s but of some animals. Even if they are human’s, there is no evidence that these people were the makers of the ceramic pots and they ate the same food containing the metallic element as they were children. And the distribution of the metallic element is not clear; if the element exists in many regions, the people may come from different places. In addition, even if they lived in another place before adulthood they may came to this new area by traveling, hunting etc but not immigration. Without considering all these possibilities, any verdict about the correlation can not be taken seriously.

In the final, through out all the argument the speaker mentions only one method while object the other one arbitrarily. Perhaps those pots belong to different makers and due to trade they were taken to different places and scattered in a wide area today. Maybe there is more convincing evidence showing the latter method is feasible yet the archeologists have not discovered.

In sum, lacking of evidence ruling out other possibilities and hasty generalized relationship in the study makes the conclusion unreliable. To bolster it, the author first should exclude other ways transferring these ceramic pots. To better assess it, sufficient and representative samples are needed. Furthermore, we should know detailed information about the metallic element contained in foods and its existence in human bone, thus we can know whether they have relationship.

monica98UID: 2124796

In this argument, the speaker recommends that those pots discovered at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration not trade. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites an analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons. However, the analysis contains several flaws and poor assumptions, rendering it unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the author provides no evidence that the sample is reliable. In order to establish a strong correlation between highly contained metallic element and people who migrated to a new place after childhood the analysis’s sample must be sufficient in size and can be representative overall. But no information of this analysis has been given. Instead the scientists only study those bones found near the pots. Perhaps a large number of bones which are not near pots do not contain the metallic element at all and a small number of pots can not be used to generalize the whole circumstance. Lacking evidence of a proper sample, the author cannot justifiably draw any convincing conclusion relying on the research.（这个我觉得不是错误，题目里只要有即可以说明问题的，不一定要都是或者是很多人都是这样）

Secondly, a hasty correlation between the metallic element and people migrating to a new place is built without enough proof. The author cites that the bones found near the pots at a few sites show high levels of metallic element in order to illustrate that those people who made the pots are the makers（a是a？） and transferred the pots by migration（不必要重复作者的思路，直接攻击）. The assumption is that these people were living together eating the food in their childhood. However, （这个没有攻击你提出的假设啊）perhaps the bones found near the pots are not of human’s but of some animals. Even if they are human’s, there is no evidence that these people were the makers of the ceramic pots and they ate the same food containing the metallic element as they were children. And the distribution of the metallic element is not clear; if the element exists in many regions, the people may come from different places（没看懂，题目没有提到说金属哪来的，只说有金属就是移民，倒可以说是可能是其他地方移民但和分布没关系）. In addition, even if they lived in another place before adulthood they may came to this new area by traveling, hunting（这应该都在广义的immigration范围内） etc but not immigration. Without considering all these possibilities, any verdict about the correlation can not be taken seriously.（感觉这段较乱，可能我们对题目理解不同吧）

In the final, through out all the argument the speaker mentions only one methodwhile object the other one arbitrarily. Perhaps those pots belong to different makers and due to trade they were taken to different places and scattered in a wide area today(这个没讲清楚，不同的人做的，然后贸易，还不是贸易嘛，题目讨论了啊，只不过移民有根据所以就说移民，这个没有攻击题目啊），. Maybe there is more convincing evidence showing the latter method is feasible yet the archeologists have not discovered.

In sum, lacking of evidence ruling out other possibilities and hasty generalized relationship in the study makes the conclusion unreliable. To bolster it, the author first should exclude other ways transferring these ceramic pots. To better assess it, sufficient and representative samples are needed. Furthermore, we should know detailed information about the metallic element contained in foods and its existence in human bone, thus we can know whether they have relationship.
（感觉你找的错误很多，但是就是挺怪的，然后没有梳理清楚。这题本身就挺怪的^_^）

xinxinwUID: 2144273

In this argument, the speaker recommends that those pots discovered at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration not trade. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites an analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons. However, the analysis contains several flaws and poor assumptions, rendering it unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the author provides no evidence that the sample is reliable. In order to establish a strong correlation between highly contained metallic element and people who migrated to a new place after childhood the analysis’s sample must be sufficient in size and can be representative overall. But no information of this analysis has been given. Instead the scientists only study those bones found near the pots. Perhaps a large number of bones which are not near pots do not contain the metallic element at all and a small number of pots can not be used to generalize the whole circumstance. Lacking evidence of a proper sample, the author cannot justifiably draw any convincing conclusion relying on the research.逻辑乱了吧，你的TS攻击的是含铁量和migrants之间的联系，跟pots有什么关系。即使所有的pots旁边都找到了高铁的骨头，能说明铁和移民的关系么？另外铁和移民关系应该是一个作者引用的事实，我认为不需要批驳

Secondly, a hasty correlation between the metallic element and people migrating to a new place is built without enough proof. The author cites that the bones found near the pots at a few sites show high levels of metallic element in order to illustrate that those people who made the pots are the makers（ people who made the pots are the makers，这不是废话么） and transferred the pots by migration. The assumption is that these people were living together eating the food in their childhood. However, perhaps the bones found near the pots are not of human’s but of some animals. Even if they are human’s, there is no evidence that these people were the makers of the ceramic pots and they ate the same food containing the metallic element as they were children. And the distribution of the metallic element is not clear; if the element exists in many regions, the people may come from different places. In addition, even if they lived in another place before adulthood they may came to this new area by traveling, hunting etc but not immigration. Without considering all these possibilities, any verdict about the correlation can not be taken seriously.TS跟第一段一样。篇幅太长，达到攻击目的即可，不用面面俱到，这样一连串的让步……

In the final, through out all the argument the speaker mentions only one method while object the other one arbitrarily. Perhaps those pots belong to different makers and due to trade they were taken to different places and scattered in a wide area today. Maybe there is more convincing evidence showing the latter method is feasible yet the archeologists have not discovered.这一段就仓促了些，不知道是不是时间的原因

In sum, lacking of evidence ruling out other possibilities and hasty generalized relationship in the study makes the conclusion unreliable. To bolster it, the author first should exclude other ways transferring these ceramic pots. To better assess it, sufficient and representative samples are needed. Furthermore, we should know detailed information about the metallic element contained in foods and its existence in human bone, thus we can know whether they have relationship.

结构！提纲！
为什么总是围绕着maker做文章呢？作者根本就没提到这个问题啊