argument33 sweetbox第四次作业

zoe797970UID: 2249886

The claim that the pots must be spread by migration not trade seems somewhat reasonable at first glance. After all, the arguer does offer some relevant evidence; the assumptions weakening this argument are not without any merit. However, he/she fails to take into account three concerns, which may undermine the argument seriously.

In the first place, lacking more specific information about the relationship between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and people's migration, it is impossible to make an informed conclusion. Maybe those prehistoric people happened to be fond of foods which contains certain metallic element and took enormous such foods in, then there is no doubt the level of such element in their bodies are higher. Furthermore, the arguer fails to give more evidence or professional knowledge to convince us there is a causal relation instead of a correlation between them.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the bones found near the pots were belong to the owners. He/she ignores other factors --such as someone might steal the pots and died when he/she tried to transport them, the bones were belong to a tradesman who intended to sell them in another city, or those pots were trophies which taken by solders. Any of the above scenarios, if true, would render the assumption a completely false one.

What further weakens the argument is without knowing more possible sources of those pots; we cannot accept the arguer's presumptuous recommendation. This argument presents a false dilemma, since the two subjects (migration and trades) are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives. For one thing, the case might be both migration and trades led to the fact that distinctively shaped ceramic pots were scattered over a wide area. For another thing, there are thousands of other possibilities besides them might result in the decentralization of those pots, such as wars and tributes.

As it stands, this argument suffers from three critical flaws. To strengthen it, the arguer would have to demonstrate the causal relation between high level of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and migration. Furthermore, he/she must provide founded and acceptable evidence to rule our all the above-mentioned possibilities that might undermine the argument.