argument37 冲刺

binzhixinhuiUID: 2399721

Argument37  第6篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：48分33秒     466 words
从2008年7月3日21时12分到2008年7月3日21时3分
------题目------
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.
------正文------
In this argument the arguer concludes that so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To substantiate the claim the author point out that a 'Palean' basket was discovered in Lithos a village across the Brim River (BR) from Palea by archaeologists. In addition, the arguer assumes that this 'Palean' basket was not carried to Lithos by boat. However, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

Firstly, the assumption that the basket is impossibly taken across the river by boat is open to doubt, because the claim that the Paleans had no boats was unwarranted. Although there is no evience that the Paleans had boats, it is still no evidence that Paleans did not have a small boat which big enough to carry one basket. What's more, the arguer fails to give us the information about how deep the BR was when Palean people existed. Is it as board and deep as today, or in the ancient time it is a narrow and mild river. Without such evidence the arguer's assumption that the basket is not carried to Lithos by boat would be seriously weaken.

What's more, the arguer unfairly assumes that Paleans had no need to cross the river. It is very likely that the foods of woods around Palea are not as flourish as nowadays. Perhaps there ware not enough fruits, vigetables and other foods for Palea, or perhaps these foods was not sufficient enough to fit the whole population of Palea. Moreover, even if the food is enough for eating, it is still possible that Palean people went outside for other aims, such as communication or exploration. Consequently, unless the author can rule out all these possibility, the author's concern about these issue is unfounded.

Even assuming that the boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo did not exist until thousand of years after the Palean people dis appeared, the arguer ignored other ways to carry the Palean basket to Lithos. For example the Lithos people went to Palean and carried a basket when he went back. Or the basket is carried by the river. Or many years after the Palean disappeared, the basket was taken to the Lithos. Absent evidence that the basket is no taken in these ways, the author's conclusion that the basket is not taken from Palean is dubious at best.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintain. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning that the impossibility for Palean basket was carried from Palean to Lithos. If the arguer can inform that more number of such kind of basket were found in Lithos, the analysis will be more solid.

chenhaozUID: 2525010

In this argument the arguer concludes that so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To substantiate the claim the author point out that a 'Palean' basket was discovered in Lithos, a village across the Brim River (BR) from Palea by archaeologists. In addition, the arguer assumes that this 'Palean' basket was not carried to Lithos by boat. However, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

Firstly, the assumption that the basket is impossibe to be taken across the river by boat is open to doubt, because the claim that the Paleans had no boats was unwarranted. Although there is no evience that the Paleans had boats, it is still no evidence that Paleans did not have a small boat to carry only one basket. What's more, the arguer fails to give us the information about how deep the BR was when Palean people existed. Was it as board and deep as today, or narrow and mild? Without such evidence the arguer's assumption that the basket is not carried to Lithos by boat would be seriously weakened.

What's more, the arguer unfairly assumes that Paleans had no need to cross the river. It is very likely that the foods of woods around Palea are not as flourish as nowadays. Perhaps there were not enough fruits, vegetables or others for Palea, and these foods might be not sufficient enough to fit the whole population of Palea. Moreover, even if the food is enough for eating, it is still possible that Palean people went outside for other aims, such as communication or exploration. Consequently, unless the author can rule out all these possibility, the author's concern about these issue is unfound.

Even assuming that the boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo did not exist until thousand of years after the Palean people disappeared, the arguer ignored other ways to carry the Palean basket to Lithos. For example, the Lithos people went to Palean and carried a basket when they went back.The basket may be carried by the river or taken to the Lithos many years after the Palean disappeared. Without evidence to prove that the basket is no taken in these ways, the author's conclusion that the basket is not taken from Palean is dubious at best.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not strongly support what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning that the impossibility for Palean basket was carried from Palean to Lithos. If the arguer can inform that more such baskets were found in Lithos, the analysis will be more solid.

eaglewatchUID: 2374680

In this argument the arguer concludes that so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. To substantiate the claim the author point out that a 'Palean' basket was discovered in Lithos a village across the Brim River (BR) from Palea by archaeologists. In addition, the arguer assumes that this 'Palean' basket was not carried to Lithos by boat. However, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

Firstly, the assumption that the basket is impossibly taken across the river by boat is open to doubt, because the claim that the Paleans had no boats was unwarranted. Although there is no evience （evidence）that the Paleans had boats, it is still no evidence that Paleans did not have a small boat which (is)big enough to carry one basket. What's more, the arguer fails to give us the information about how deep the BR was when Palean people existed. Is it (It is)as board and deep as today, or in the ancient time it is a narrow and mild river. Without such evidence the arguer's assumption that the basket is not carried to Lithos by boat would be seriously weaken(ed).

What's more, the arguer unfairly assumes that Paleans had no need to cross the river. It is very likely that the foods of woods around Palea are not as flourish as nowadays. Perhaps there ware not enough fruits, vigetables and other foods for Palea, or perhaps these foods was not sufficient enough to fit the whole population of Palea. Moreover, even if the food is enough for eating, it is still possible that Palean people went outside for other aims, such as communication or exploration. Consequently, unless the author can rule out all these possibility, the author's concern about these issue is unfounded.

Even assuming that the boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo did not exist until thousand of years after the Palean people dis appeared, the arguer ignored other ways to carry the Palean basket to Lithos. For example the Lithos people went to Palean and carried a basket when he went back. Or the basket is carried by the river. Or many years after the Palean disappeared, the basket was taken to the Lithos. Absent evidence that the basket is no taken in these ways, the author's conclusion that the basket is not taken from Palean is dubious at best.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintain. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning that the impossibility for Palean basket was carried from Palean to Lithos. If the arguer can inform that more number of such kind of basket were found in Lithos, the analysis will be more solid.

第二段和第三段，都有部分论证是重复的，都是说古代和现在不一样，问题不大，文中语法错误太多了，建议用word文档先自己差一遍，还有时态最好一致。
argument要拿6分的...别小看他。

binzhixinhuiUID: 2399721

谢谢你的意见。
我都用word改过才放上来的……