argument37 冲刺 第三次作业 eaglewatch NO.2

eaglewatchUID: 2374680

题目：ARGUMENT37 - 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.
字数：432          用时：0:30:00          日期：2008-8-3

In the report , merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer draws the conclusion that Palean(P) baskets were not unique to Palea. To substantiate the statement, the author points out that : (1) ancient Paleans could only cross the deep and broad Brim River(BR); (2)boats capable for groups of people were developed after P people disappeared; (3) Palean would have no need to cross BR, with the reason that woods are full of food. At the first glance, the statement appears to be somewhat convincing; however, further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. In a word, the statement suffers from several flaws.

Firstly, the arguer attempts to prove that no evidence showed that Paleans had boats equals with there is no boats for Paleans. As a matter of fact, no evidence just means that it is entire possible that we lack the evidence which can help us to illustrate the phenomenon, rather than neglect the possibility. Common sense tells us that prove the existence of something is far easier than the nonexistence of something; sometime the latter cannot be proved. However, the arguer fails to consider these possibilities so that draw a flawed assumption.

Secondly, the arguer asserts that there is no need to cross the BR to get food because the woods around P are full of nuts berries. In the one hand, even if the Palea really lacks the ability to have boat, whether there is need to cross the BR cannot be decided assertive--after all, the food here maybe is not afforded for ancient Palea. In the other hand, even the food is enough, whether they have cross the river by other methods is not sure, with the lacking of evidence given out. Obviously, the arguer belittles these possibilities.

Finally, even though the ancient Paeans have never crossed the BR, whether the P basket is unique, cannot be draw an assertive conclusion. It is entirely possible that the BR --just like the statement points out --is deep and broad, can push the P baskets to L with the flows. However, the arguer fails to make a thorough consideration about that.

To sum up, the statement suffers from several flaws discussed above. To substantiate the statement, the arguer should have to provide more information about the P culture, especially the boats there. In addition, he would have to make a deep survey regarding the BR and whether the P people have cross it. At last, the arguer had better have a through consideration about the reason that why P basket appears in L. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it could have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

lishuang0313UID: 2216736

In the report , merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer draws the conclusion that Palean(P) baskets were not unique to Palea. To substantiate the statement, the author points out that : (1) ancient Paleans could (only应该是not） cross the deep and broad Brim River(BR); (2)boats (which were)capable for groups of people were developed after P people disappeared; (3) Palean would have no need to cross BR, with the reason that woods are full of food. At the first glance, the statement appears to be somewhat convincing; however, further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. In a word, the statement suffers from several flaws.

Firstly, the arguer attempts to prove that no evidence showed that Paleans had boats equals with there is no boats for Paleans. As a matter of fact, no evidence just means that it is entire possible that we lack the evidence which can help us to illustrate the phenomenon, rather than neglect the possibility. Common sense tells us that prove(应该改为分词状态) the existence of something is far easier than the nonexistence of something; sometime（sometimes） the latter cannot be proved. However, the arguer fails to consider these possibilities so that draw a flawed assumption.

Secondly, the arguer asserts that there is no need to cross the BR to get food because the woods around P are full of nuts berries. In(on) the one hand, even if the Palea really lacks the ability to have boat, whether there is need to cross the BR cannot be(assertively) decided (assertive去掉)--after all, the food here maybe is not (sufficiently)afforded for ancient Palea. In(on) the other hand, even the food is enough, whether they have crossed the river by other methods is not sure, with the lacking of evidence given out. Obviously, the arguer belittles these possibilities.

Finally, even though the ancient Paeans have never crossed the BR, whether the P basket is unique, cannot be draw an assertive conclusion. It is entirely possible that the BR --just like the statement points out --is deep and broad, can push the P baskets to L with the flows. However, the arguer fails to make a thorough consideration about that.(写得再细一些就更好了）

To sum up, the statement suffers from several flaws discussed above. To substantiate the statement, the arguer should have to provide more information about the P culture, especially the boats there. In addition, he would have to make a deep survey regarding the BR and whether the P people have cross it. At last, the arguer had better have a through (thorough)consideration about the reason that why P basket appears(appeared) in L. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it could have become more thorough and logically acceptable
你的作文在30分钟内完成的很流畅，错误很少。