arguement37 12月高强组周六作业

sunnie_518UID: 2136235

TOPIC: ARGUMENT37 - 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.
WORDS: 494         TIME: 0:40:00        DATE: 2006-12-23
In this argument, the speaker concludes that the so-called Palean basket were not unique to Palea. To justify his conclusion, the speaker cites a recent discovery made by archaeologists. In addition, the speaker points out that Palea surrounded by woods full of nuts, berries and small game. A close examination would reveal how groundless this argument is.

To begin with, the speaker makes an unwarranted assumption that Palean people had never been to Lithos. There is no evidence to show that ancient people cross river only by taking boat or big cargo. It is possible that they can reach opposite bank by simple tools such as rafts. As result of that, that the Paleans had no boats and on big cargo developed at that day lends no support to the speaker's assumption. Even if the Brim River is a major barrier for Palean people to cross river, we can not rule out the possibility that there are other roads connecting these two places rather other than this river. Thus, Palean people can go to Lithos by these accesses. Furthermore, all information about this river is observed contemporarily. During such a long time, lots of possible historical changes would invalidate these observations. It is high probable that the Brim River was narrow and shallow or even did not exist thousands of years ago. Therefore, the speaker fails to provide more convincing evidences to persuade us to accept his assumption.

No substantive evidences to support the speaker's assumption that searching for food was the only consideration for the Palean people visiting other places. Perhaps, beautiful scenes of Lithos were primary attraction for Paleans to entertain themselves. Or perhaps, they went there just by chance accidentally. Consequently, it is presumptuous to assert that Paleans had no need to cross river except finding food.

Moreover, whether woods around Palea were full of nuts, berries and small game thousands of year ago the same as today is open to doubt. If there were no enough stuff to serves as necessary food while in Lithos, many edible issue were growing, Paleans had to find food in Litho or elsewhere to survive.

Granted Paleans had never reached Lithos, it is unreasonable to maintain that these baskets had not been produced in Palea. Either the fact that villagers in Lithos had been to Palea and then brougt the baskets back or that people of other villages but these two region had arrived at Palea and then taken its baskets to Lithos can explain why Palean baskets can be found in Lithos. Assuming contemporaries could not commute between these two places, it is perhaps that Palean posterities who had been visited Lithos brought baskets to there.As result of that, lacking ruling out these possibilities, we can not believe that baskets discovered in Lithos are not produced in Palea.

In summary, since the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his conclusion should not be adopted.