Argument33 [sweetbox]第四次作业byMa YiMing

mym1102UID: 2326718

======================Argument 33==================

The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered分散 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."

Adimittedly,the conclusion that the ceramic pot were spread by migration based on the analysis of bones of prhestoric human and the evidence that many bones with high level of certain metallic found near the pot sound reasonable at the first glance. However,several important concerns, which the arguer fails to take into count ,may seriously undermine the argument.
First of all,the arguer commits a fallacy of hesty deduction.The causes of spread of ceramics may be the combination of migration and trade.Unless the arguer could give more precise information on the proportion of human bones with high levels of metallic element were found near the pots,or the conclusion would be groudless,since it is likely that migration may just contribute a minor effect of spread of the ceramic pots.
In addition, even though high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood,a man with high levels of certain metallic element is unnecessarily one who migrated to a new place after childhood.
Last but not least,the arguer neglect the other causes of the spread of the ceramics.It is equally possible that the ceramic were spread by invasion,plunder,even the continence movement.One have to examine all the possible aspect of the cause of spread of ciramic pots ot reach the conclusion how this happened.
In summary ,the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading.To solidify the argument the arguer would have to provide evidence to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities that undermine the argument

[ 本帖最后由 mym1102 于 2007-6-15 07:55 编辑 ]