Argument33 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 on paooozhixia163

gewangUID: 2186573

【题目】
Argument33
Thefollowing report appeared in an archaeology journal.
Thediscovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sitesscattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots werespread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carriedthe pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade andtheir makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistorichuman skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallicelement contained in various foods are strongly associated with people whomigrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the potsat a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must bethat the pots were spread by migration, not trade.
在广泛区域分散分布的很多史前遗迹发现的形状独特的陶壶导致考古学家提出疑问：这些壶是如何流传的？有些人相信壶的制造者迁移到别的地方并把壶随之带来；另一些人相信壶是通过贸易流传的，而他们的制造者留在一个地方。现在，对于史前人类骨骼的分析可以解决这个争论: 在多种食物中都含有的某种金属元素的高含量与那些成年后移居到新地方的人有很高的关联性。在一些遗迹的壶附近发现的很多骨头都显示出这种金属元素的高含量。因此，这些壶肯定是通过迁徙而不是贸易来流传的。
【原提纲】
论断：坛子是移民传播的不是贸易。因为研究表明各种食物里某种特定金属的高含量会一直跟随童年后移民到新地方的人，而在一些这样的坛子旁发现了很多骨头里这种金属元素的含量都很高。
论点：
1.论断的前提并不一定成立。这个前提是这些骨头都属于原来童年时居住在一个地方的人，但论者没有提供足够的证据支持这个观点。这种金属物质，是骨头上先前就有的，还是后来腐蚀之后有的。(感觉这点说服力不强)骨科专家有待进一步确定。
2.虽然在一些坛子旁发现了这种金属含量很高的骨头，但没有证据证明这种金属只在某一个地方存在，而在其他地方就没有。如果这种金属在很多地方都有，那么这些骨头就有可能属于不同地方的人。
(1, 2两点都在说骨头是否属于不同地方的人，这篇文章可供驳斥的点很多，没必要在这上面写上两段)
3.论断武断地排除了贸易这个因素，但正如论者并不能保证坛子旁的骨头都属于一个地方，那不同地方之间进行贸易而使坛子出现在不同地方就不能被排除。(除论证贸易外，可从其他方面分析坛子出现的原因)
结论：
论者的结论做得很武断不科学。要增强说服力论者还需要提供关于这种金属的分布情况，发现这种骨头的坛子比例有多少，以及这种坛子被发现时的情景如何，以说明坛子边为什么会有这种骨头。
【新提纲】
1)      论断的前提并不一定成立-这些骨头都属于原来童年时居住在一个地方的人;
2)      就算前提成立, 这也只能说明旁边有这种骨头的坛子是由移民传播的.而其他地方的坛子如何并不能一定与这些地方的一样;而且坛子和骨头的主人有可能并不一样;
3)      论断武断地排除了贸易这个因素, 除论证贸易外，可从其他方面分析坛子出现的原因.
论坛上有篇文章对这个argument的分析很全面，建议看看：
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=618297&highlight=%2B%BD%F0%D6%A6
【正文】
Thenotion (deduction/argument)that the pots were spread by migration, not trade, seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion (seems obvious at first glance). After all (去掉), it is based on the analysis thatthe bones, found near the pots showed high levels of the metallic elementcontained in various foods, which are strongly associated with migrated people(复述时最好能对原文进行些改写). However, the conclusion thatcontains several facets remaining questionable,(the conclusion contains several facets which remains questionable,) Iwill discuss them in turn (one by one).
First of all, the premise that the author provides to support hisconclusion is insufficient. He fails to testify that the bones are belonging topeople who migrated after childhood. (写下原因) Moreover, we won’t agreewith the author’s perspective before we make(can be) sure that weather(去掉) the metallic element lay(去掉) in the bones or themetallic element was created after their host died. During long time’s canker (???), it is possiblethat metallic element contained by the bones had taken some inherentdiversifications. So the metallic element for evidence(没说清楚) is unfound and remains forthe specialist’s research and identification. (这段逻辑混乱了, TC(姑且认为是第1,2 两句话)和So后面的并不相对应, 而且论证过程说服力不强,在提出一个观点都不没有对其进行说明, 在语言上,有些看似高档的词用得并不恰当,并建议在写作时少用主动语态)
Inaddition, even though bones containing high levels of acertain metallic element are found near the pots,(这个让步从哪儿来的,上一段?看不出来) but further analysis should be made (needed) toillustrate that the metallic element is existed in the(a) certain exclusive place. If the element had (been) spared everywhere (other places), we canassume that (it is possible that) it (指代不明) may (去掉) belongs to other place rather the sites that the bones are found.However, it is a pity that the author has not mentioned(mention—vt.)at all. (这段和上段一样观点不明, 写作语言上的问题, 而且观点和上段有重复的地方)
Justas we couldn’t eliminate the possibility that the bones are not only belongs tohere, and we also ….(没写完?)

【参考链接】
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=908667&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1772209437




[ 本帖最后由 gewang 于 2009-1-12 11:42 编辑 ]