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

wsggUID: 2553150

Argument 33
The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
'The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at variousprehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists toask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated tothe various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believethe pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place.Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settlethe debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained invarious foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a newplace after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a fewsites 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。

提纲：
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。
2.就算前提成立，论据只能说明旁边有这种骨头的坛子是由移民传播的，不能说明所有的坛子一定是由移民传播的。
3.就算不同坛子边的骨头属于同年在一个地方生活的人们，也不能保证他们是因为移民而出现在不同地方的。况且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。

正文：
In this argument, the author concludes that the pots were spread by migration based on the fact that bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element, which are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. It seems to be rational at first glance, however, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the premise for the conclusion is that the bones belong to individuals lived in the same place in their childhood. It is insufficient that the evidence to substantiate this presupposition. There is no proof about the metallic element only exist in one district. If the sort of metallic element could be found in many other areas, these bones’ owners maybe not lived in the same region.

In the next place, the testimony in the argument lack of persuasion. The fact that the bones were found in a few sites could not represent overall sites are the same. Even though the precondition comes into existence, it can only prove the pots with bones found nearby instead of the whole pots were spread by migration.

Last not least, the arguer draws an arbitrary conclusion. On the assumption that the bones near the different pots belong to the individuals survived in the same place and the same period, the reasons why the individuals appeared in dissimilar region is likely various, such as died on the route for some unaware reasons during hunting or hiking, but not for migration. As the author could not ensure the assumption comes into existence to a certainty, trade among different places as the cause of appearance of the pots could not be excluded.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility. Regardless of who the author is, he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should give more evidences about the above-mentioned possibilities, for the instance, the situation of the metallic element distributing, the percentage of the pots with bones nearby, and the conditions when the pots were found to illuminate why the bones exposed about the pots.




[ 本帖最后由 wsgg 于 2009-1-13 20:04 编辑 ]

daishuchenUID: 2590165

http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-909271-1-1.html  第一次改，有点乱，请多多包涵。