Argument33 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 by leader2050

leader2050UID: 2591145

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.'
翻译：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。

提纲：
1 Hasty Generation: 骨头被发现在一些遗迹但这些发现不能代表全部遗迹
2 False Cause: 骨头中的金属元素和食物中的金属元素的高关联性不等于因果性。
3 False Dilemma: 答案并不唯一，贸易和移居可以并存。


In this argument, the arguer claims that the pots were spread by migration rather than trade. The conclusion is based on the analysis of that those bones, found near the pots showed high level of a certain metallic elements contained in various food, which is highly associated with those people who migrated there after growing up. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.  

First of all, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. The arguer’s conclusion about the pots’ spreading by pot makers’ migration depend on the analysis of those bones which is found at only a few sites. Yet the arguer offer no evidence to prove the assumption could extend to all the pots sites. Perhaps some bones found near several pots sites might be just exception that the soils at those sites which also contain this metallic element transfer it to those bones. So the arguer must confirm that the analysis of bones at every pots site is equivalent. Otherwise, it could hardly to draw any conclusion about the analysis of the bones found near the pots through the current analysis.

Secondly, even if the analysis of the bones has been improved to overlap every site, strong associations between the various food and the migrated people do not necessarily prove that the former cause s the latter. The arguer must also account for all other possible factors leading to the high level of certain metallic elements. Perhaps the metallic elements in bones were eroded through the rain and snow after the man’s death, while the generation of the pot makers never owns this kind of element. Or the food has been evolved through thousands of years which does not contain this metallic element at that time. Therefore, it is entirely possible that there is no relationship between the metallic elements in various food and the people’s bones.   

Besides, the arguer assumes that the migration of pot makers and trading of pots are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the arguer provides no reason for imposing an either/or choice. Hereby, it is likely that both the migration of makers and trading of pots existed at the same time. Some pots were spreading by trading; also some pots migrated to other places with pot makers.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between metallic elements in food and in bones of pot makers at every site. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must demonstrate more evidence to prove such causal relationship and bones analysis in more sites. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the argument until knowing why the pot makers would migrate or some detail about the pot trade in history.