Argument33【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第二次作业 by luyaoxu

luyaoxuUID: 2588850

Argument 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 argument, the speaker concludes that in archeology the discovered ceramic pots were spread by migration, not trade. To justify the conclusion, the speaker provides the evidence that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood, while many bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.  
First of all, the strong correlation between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and people who migrated after childhood doesn’t imply any sign that there is a correspondence between migration and ceramic pots.  Correlation is far from causal sequence. What kind of correlation is this? Since the evidence lack of convincing details, we have reason to doubt the phenomenon is only concurrence or just coincidence.
To analyze in depth, high concentration of a certain metallic element in food has a good chance to be determined by the local geography environment and history. Assume the food is affected by ceramic pots or take it further, pots brought by migration; they should contain diverse types of chemicals, in accordance with various sources of pots, not a single or certain one. Here contradiction arises in validity of evidence. Even if the metallic element of ceramic pots penetrates into food, there is no warrant evidence to conclude that the pots were due to migration, we can also presume there existed trade markets once before.
Besides, the second statistical evidence which it relies on is too vague to be informative. The observation happened in just a few sites cannot represent a diverse cross places. Still, we have no clue about the identity of the bones found near the pots. Without further research, it’s hard to predict they are local people or not. The conclusion that the bones belong to immigrants just via levels of the metallic element is presumptuous.  
To sum up, the speaker fails to establish a causal relationship between metallic levels and people who immigrated. To better assess the argument it would be useful to do more research to strengthen the statistical reliability. Obviously, the speaker needs to provide more convincing evidences.

waidswUID: 2256074

In this argument, the speaker concludes that in archeology（What does in archeology mean） the discovered ceramic pots were spread by migration, not trade. To justify the conclusion, the speaker provides the evidence that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood (Maybe this sentence is redundant), while many bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.  

First of all, the strong correlation （why these two are strong related?）between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and people who migrated after childhood doesn’t imply any sign that there is a correspondence between migration and ceramic pots.  Correlation is far from causal sequence. What kind of correlation is this? Since the evidence lack of convincing details, we have reason to doubt the phenomenon is only concurrence (maybe it is not suitable to use concurrence) or just coincidence. (I think this paragraph is too abstract and repetitive)

To analyze in depth, high concentration of a certain metallic element in food has a good chance to be determined by the local geography environment and history. Assume the food is affected by ceramic pots or take it further, pots brought by migration; they should contain diverse types of chemicals, in accordance with various sources of pots, not a single or certain one.(I don’t think it is very solid, why should pot contain chemicals.) Here contradiction arises in validity of evidence. Even if the metallic element of ceramic pots penetrates into food(metallic element in bones may not come from pots), there is no warrant evidence to conclude that the pots were due to migration, we can also presume there existed trade markets once before.

Besides, the second statistical evidence (?what) which it relies on is too vague to be informative. The observation happened in just a few sites cannot represent a diverse cross places. Still, we have no clue about the identity of the bones found near the pots. Without further research, it’s hard to predict they are local people or not.(This part can be argued more convincingly with more details) The conclusion that the bones belong to immigrants just via levels of the metallic element is presumptuous.  

To sum up, the speaker fails to establish a causal relationship between metallic levels and people who immigrated(This is not the point. The point is can we conclude from high levels of the metallic element in bones that pots are bought by immigrants). To better assess the argument it would be useful to do more research to strengthen the statistical reliability. Obviously, the speaker needs to provide more convincing evidences.(This sentence has the same meaning as the previous one)

Congratulations on your first arguments. This one is not easy and I think you will encounter harder ones later on. Good job but I think you still have some things to improve on. First you have to figure out the structure of your argument before going about writing. And you also have to make your argument more persuasive by using examples and details. In addition, you don’t need to repeat the same thing twice. Try to focus on specific induction rather than abstract conclusions. Don’t panic and relax yourself. You have plenty of time and I believe you will make good things happen!

sibslccUID: 2463158

你好，我以为waidsw跨楼层改你的呢
于是我就往下找了一个没有楼上的帖子，把它改了
结果谁知道这个waidsw只改了第一篇
郁闷，早知道他只是个插队的，我就改你的了
sorry，我一定补上

[ 本帖最后由 sibslcc 于 2009-1-13 19:25 编辑 ]

waidswUID: 2256074

对不起，我不是你们小组的，我只是帮她改一下作文而已。真不好意思。