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

curylynneUID: 2319354

【题目】Arguement33

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.' 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。
【正文】
According to this argument, the author considers that the pots were spread by migration. It is supported by the evidence that the bones near the pots containing high levels of the metallic element are greatly correlated with people who moved to a new place. . However, the fact is that mints of the bones which were found near the pots that indicated high quantity metallic element does not necessarily prove that the pots were diffused via migration, not trade. There are several flaws in this argument that can not make the conclusion be demonstrated very clearly.

First of all, the author makes a fallacy in problematic assumption on the evidence to support the conclusion. As it mentioned in the argument, the author gives the proof that a certain metallic element has, great correlation with migrators who were moved after childhood. But it does not have any direct evidence to testify that the food containing the metallic element only ate by the group of pots makers. The author supposes the hypothesis that the handicraftsman is equal to the relocatee. The argument lacks sufficient facts to make sure that the people who moved after childhood equate to makers.

Furthermore, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the fact that prehistoric human bones which were found around the pots within high concentrations of metallic element and the pots were spread by migration. This argument, nonetheless,is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of the bones containing metallic element near the pots site, and the presumptuous correlation accordingly is unacceptable. Considering the result of the argument, the author acquiesces the supposition that the metallic element must subside in human's bones. The supposition is still need to testify. Actually, they are equally possibility that the pots were spread by trade and the bones were not belong to the ceramic makers.

On the whole, the argument gave merely little proof to demonstrate its notion. Moreover, the author commits some logical flaws in statement, such as, problematic assumption and cause-effect fallacy. To strengthen the passage , the author should supply more data about the relationship between the people who migrated after childhood and the metallic element, the foods containing metallic element are only ate by makers and so on.