argument33 [kb9.11]第一次作业

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

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."
WORDS: 271          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-15 23:15:38

The report written in the archaeology journal make the conclusion that the pots were spreaded by migration other than by trading based on the evidence that the bones around the pot contains a high level of metalic element. However, this conclusion is too cursory to justify its position.

To begin with, the author provide two possible explanation for the pot scattered around without considering other possobilities. It is likely that the pots buried are neighter by trading nor by migration. It is possible that they are just the custom for these prehistoric people to scatter these pots around there sites. Or  they make use these pots to restore rain in prevent of lacking water. Without considering these possobilities, it is hardly to say that the conclusion in the report is convincing enough. Additionally, even it has only two possoblities, the author based on his or her judgment merely on supporting the second one.  It is possible that trading does happened at the same time. Only by in support of the second explanation cannot delete the first explanation at all.

Secondly, the author mentions that there is a strong link between the level of certain metalic element  people who migrate to a new place after a childhood. However, this connection hardly support that people whose bone have high quantity of such metalic definetely have migrated during their childhood. It is possible that people in this site have a food all contains with such metallic element. Another possibility is that it is the pot, which containing water and food  by  these prehistoric people everyday, that contains this metalic element. And therefore lead these people with highly level of such element. The author fails to consider the other ways lead to the situation, and hence leave this report with fallacy in logic.

Finaly , author makes the assumption that the pot over the site is belonged to the people whose bone has the certain metalic elements around the same place. This assumption is also dubious at best. Being found in the same area does not necessarily means that these people is the make of the pots. It is possible that even these people indeed have migrated in there childhood, they just got these pots by trading with the pot-makers. It is also likely that these people are not buried with these pots at the same era so they does not have any conneciton at all. Without considering and prevent out with these facts, the author cannot justify his conclusion at all.

In a summary, the auther only listing the facts that have connection with the expanation of migration but fails to consider other possiblities. To strenth this  conclusion, the author need firstly to establish the cause and effect relatioship and ruling out any other possible explanation of this phenominance. Without considering all of the factors that lead to the same result, it is not safe to say that the conclusion is a convincing one.
  safe to say that the conclusion is a convincing one.

[ 本帖最后由 qiuzirumeng 于 2007-8-16 09:26 编辑 ]