超越自我小组~argument33~继续补上作业~

啊拉UID: 2527432

题目：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."




The author of this argument tries to pursuade us to believe that the pots were spread by migration but not trade. Though the author gives some examples and assert sincerely, some logical problems expose that this assertion is not convincing.

First, the author’s assertion that it must be that the pots were spread by migration seems too hasty. Trade can also be the way of pots’ spread. Perhaps historic people trade to some places, and some choose to come back their village and some choose to live there. Or even if trade may not be the main way to help pots’ spread, other ways besides migration can also help the pots’ spread. Perhaps pots are the present to other countries, or a big flood rushed the pots to a long way places. Maybe pots were spread by these ways but not migration. So the author should give us more evidence about migration must be the only way.

Second, the conclusion is based on relationship between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and people’s migration. However, this assertion is problematic. The metallic element in various foods may not associate with the migration. It is highly possible that the foods in the analysis was evolved and actually, they did not exist in prehistory. So the people live prehistoric never ate these kinds of foods and obviously the foods has nothing to do with the prehistoric migration. Or perhaps the people ate the same various foods which contain the certain metallic element before their “migration”, so the foods cannot be the evidence to show the people’s migration.

Even if I concede that the foods are associated with the migration, the investigation about the bones has some problems. The bones near the pots may not be the migrators’: The ghouls and the thieves can always be the owner of these bones. They tried to steal the things in the tribe or even they tried to steal the pots, but unfortunately, they failed. They were killed or commit suicide near the pots so the bones were belonging to them. Or perhaps the bones were the traders’: they have the high level of the certain element because they ate the same foods in their own country, or they live there only a few days but the high level of the metallic element becomes the deadly poison to them. So the bones cannot prove that the owners were the migrators.

In sum, I suggest that the author should reconsider about the conclusion or change his/her mind after reading this argument.