Argement33 Exe2

JourloveUID: 2462205

！！！欢迎大家拍砖！！！

33.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."

        In this report, the author concludes that the ceramic spots at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration. To support his conclusion, the author cites two facts----the bones of people migrated after child contains high levels of a certain metallic element and there are many bones containing the metallic element found near some pots. A careful examination, however, would reveal that this report suffers several critical flaws.
        Based on the two facts, the author unfairly assumes that the bones found near the spots were originally people migrated from other places after child. It is entirely possible that these people containing the metallic element are actually indigenous and the regions where they lived were full of the food containing the metallic element. Moreover, even if in other cites, it is equally possible that people in those region often eat that kind of food containing the metallic element which would gradually be an element of their bones.
        Even if one accepts that these bone-people were migrants, the report remains questionable. The author assumes that they are the pot makers. But the report fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. Perhaps, the pots were left by the passer who was just the taker coming from other places. In addition, the author fails to consider the possibility that the pots and these bone-people does not belong to the same period. Moreover, these bone-people may have no sense of the spots even if they were migrant. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the author can not conclude that the pots were spread by migration.
       Finally, even assumes that the spots belong to the bone-people, the bone-people is not necessarily migrated from other places. For example, the spots might actually been buried with his owner who died during an expedition or an invasion.
       In sum, the report, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The report could be improved by providing evidence that the bone-people were migrated from other places after childhood. It could be further improved by ruling out alternatives explanations for the claim that the spots belong to the bone-people.

半妖UID: 2328063

（不用空格）In this report, the author concludes that the ceramic spots at various prehistoric sites were spread by migration. To support his conclusion, the author cites two facts----the bones of people migrated after child contains high levels of a certain metallic element and there are many bones containing the metallic element found near some pots. A careful examination, however, would reveal that this report suffers several critical flaws.
        Based on the two facts, the author unfairly assumes that the bones found near the spots were originally people（主谓搭配不当） migrated from other places after child. It is entirely possible that these people containing the metallic element are actually indigenous and the regions where they lived were full of the food containing the metallic element. Moreover, even if in other cites, it is equally possible that people in those region often eat that kind of food containing the metallic element which would gradually be an element of their bones.（第二个论据不充分，是说其他地方的人的骨头也可能含有这种元素，那和文中的骨头有什么关系呢，如果是说有其他地方迁移过去的话，那么不就支持第二段的观点重合了么）
        Even if one accepts that these bone-people（是否地道） were migrants, the report remains questionable. The author assumes that they are the pot makers. But the report fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. Perhaps, the pots were left by the（a） passer who was just the taker coming from other places.（觉得表述不够清晰，不能直接证明中心论点they may not be the pot maker） In addition, the author fails to consider the possibility that the pots and these bone-people does not belong to the same period. Moreover, these bone-people may have no sense of(啥意思) the spots even if they were migrant. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the author can not conclude that the pots were spread by migration.
       Finally, even assumes that the spots belong to the bone-people, the bone-people is not necessarily migrated from other places(与第一段论点重复). For example, the spots might actually been buried with his owner who died during an expedition or an invasion.
       In sum, the report, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The report could be improved by providing evidence that the bone-people were migrated from other places after childhood. It could be further improved by ruling out alternatives explanations for the claim that the spots belong to the bone-people.