argument46 【Victors小组】第六次作业

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

In this argument, the arguer concludes that grizzly bears had probably lived in eastern Canadian province of Labrador, which was not accepted by people and scientists before. Consequently, the arguer consider the explorer’s account of having met with a grizzly bear in Labrador in nineteenth century is accurate. To support his claims, the arguer cites a resent research into the language and legends of the Innu, a people who have lived in Labrador for thousands of years, which exposes that their languages has described two different kinds of bears of distinctive characteristics. However, there are several flaws in this argument which make it unconvincing and unreasonable.

In the first place, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the two different kinds of bears noted in Innu Languages and legends refer to the two exact kinds of bears---black bears and grizzly bears. As there is no information depicting the colors, sizes, and living habitat of the two kinds of bears appeared in Innu languages, the arguer cannot rule out the possibility that the two kinds of bears are other species rather than grizzly ones. Moreover, the accuracy of legends of Innu is need to be substantiate, as the legends are not very authoritative and might be changed when it hand down generation by generation, so there is no guarantee that the bears which were attributed different characteristics to were really different species, maybe they just differ in some exterior properties instead of genetic types. Therefore, the assumption is flawed as it stands.

Granted that the description and contents in the languages and legends of Innu are all accurate, the arguer cannot rule out the possibility that Innu people had immigrated from western areas to Labrador, so that it is no doubt that there are two kinds of bears appearing in the Innu languages and legends. It is entirely possible that Innu people were first living in western Canadian where grizzly bears were living coincidently, and after hundreds and thousands of years, with the evolution and development in the world as well, Innu people moved to Labrador for some special reasons and wrote down the local black bear existing there in their languages and legends. So the research lends little support to the arguer’s assumption that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador.

Additionally, even if the Innu had never moved and lived in Labrador all the time, there might be only one or several grizzly bears moving into Labrador by accident rather than live there. It is possible that some merchants or hunters had took some to Labrador or they escaped from western areas because of some catastrophes or calamities and finally died and extinguished in Labrador, without living there. Therefore, there is no direct and exact evidence to prove the arguer’s conclusion.

Finally, the account from a nineteenth-century explorer might be wrong or inaccurate. Maybe the bear he met was just like grizzly bear but not a true one. Moreover, It was just indicted from himself without others’ observation or seeing, so it was unwarranted and unconvincing.

To sum up, the arguer’s assumption is problematic and lack of sufficient evidence as it stands. To better support it , the arguer must cites particular statistics and investigation in history and archaeology. There is also a need for the arguer to offer accurate characteristics in grizzly and other kinds of bears in order to make the argument flawless and reasonable.  

jennetrjUID: 2275453

In this argument, the arguer concludes that grizzly bears had probably lived in eastern[,] Canadian province of Labrador, which was not accepted by people and scientists before. Consequently, the arguer consider the explorer’s account of having met with a grizzly bear in Labrador in nineteenth century is accurate. To support his claims, the arguer cites a resent research into [of]the language and legends of the Innu, a people who have lived in Labrador for thousands of years, which exposes that their languages has described two different kinds of bears of distinctive characteristics. However, there are several flaws in this argument which make it unconvincing and unreasonable.

In the first place, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the two different kinds of bears noted in Innu Languages and legends refer to the two exact kinds of bears---black bears and grizzly bears. As there is no information depicting the colors, sizes, and living habitat of the two kinds of bears appeared in Innu languages, the arguer cannot rule out the possibility that the two kinds of bears are other species rather than grizzly [and black] ones. Moreover, the accuracy of legends of Innu is need to be substantiate, as the legends are not very authoritative and might be changed when it [ they were] hand[ed] down generation by generation, so there is no guarantee that the bears which were attributed different characteristics [to] were really different species, maybe they just differ in some exterior properties instead of genetic types. Therefore, the assumption is flawed as it stands.

Granted that the description and contents in the languages and legends of Innu are all accurate, the arguer cannot rule out the possibility that Innu people had immigrated from western areas to Labrador, so that it is no doubt that there are two kinds of bears appearing in the Innu languages and legends.[某一部落的迁徙与语言中一定有有关两种熊的描述并无直接因果关系，建议将后半句移到所举的反例之后] It is entirely possible that Innu people were first living in western Canadian where grizzly bears were living coincidently, and after hundreds and thousands of years, with the evolution and development in the world as well, Innu people moved to Labrador for some special reasons and wrote down the local black bear existing there in their languages and legends. So the research lends little support to the arguer’s assumption that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador.

Additionally, even if the Innu had never moved and lived in Labrador all the time, there might be only one or several grizzly bears moving into Labrador by accident rather than live there. It is possible that some merchants or hunters had took some to Labrador or they escaped from western [areas] because of some catastrophes or calamities and finally died and extinguished in Labrador, without living there[可省略]. Therefore, there is no direct and exact evidence to prove the arguer’s conclusion.

Finally, the account from a nineteenth-century explorer might be wrong or inaccurate. Maybe the bear he met was just like grizzly bear but not a true one. Moreover, It was just indicted from himself without others’ observation or seeing, so it was unwarranted and unconvincing. [观点很好，可惜没有展开]

To sum up, the arguer’s assumption is problematic and lack of sufficient evidence as it stands. To better support it , the arguer must cites particular statistics and investigation in history and archaeology. There is also a need for the arguer to offer accurate characteristics in grizzly and other kinds of bears in order to make the argument flawless and reasonable.  

LZ语言漂亮，思路清楚；不知是否限时？ 高手啊！！

perfectattackUID: 2573200

lz确实很强，就其一点，就已经展开了如此丰富有层次有想象力的供给，佩服佩服，偶有单词拼写错误，如archeology等