Argument33 [Smile C]第三次作业

xinxinwUID: 2144273

TOPIC: ARGUMENT33
- 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."

Outline:
1. The wonder of archaeologists how the pots were widely spread are based on the rootless assumption that the all the pots were made in one place.
2. The arguer commits the false dilemma in the presumption that the pots were spread either by migration or trade.
3. The arguer fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that the bones found near the pots are from migrants who spread the pots. (Metallic elements in food may not have remained in bones, other sources of metallic elements)


The arguer raises the conclusion that the variously scattered pots were spread by migration, not trade, by citing the association of metallic element in the bones, which were found near a few pots sites, and migrated people. The argument seems reasonable at first glance. But if we examine it carefully, we would find that the arguer commits several logic fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the wonder of archaeologists how the pots were somehow spread are based on the rootless assumption that the all the pots were made in one place. Distinctive in shape, as was mentioned in the argument, the pots are entirely possible to be produced by different craftsmen in different places, and have stay in the same place all through the years. If true, this case would serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assertion that the pots were spread afterwards.

Secondly, the arguer commits the false dilemma in the presumption that the pots were spread either by migration, or trade. Perhaps the two ways of spreading pots co-existed in the history, that is, migrants carried a part of pots to distant places and the trade spread the other ones. Or, there are some other possible approaches to disperse the pots, by marriage between different races as dowries and by wars as trophies, for instance. Without ruling out all the possibilities I listed above, the arguer's deduction is unconvincing.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer fails to provided substantial evidence to validate that the bones found near the pots are from migrants, and it was the migrants who spread the pots. For one thing, the arguer provides no information on whether the metallic element contained in foods would remain in bones. Also, there are other possible sources of metallic element like the soil where the bodies are buried, which could also affect the levels of the metallic element in human bones after death. For another thing, the concurrence of the bones and pots in the same place lends little support to arguer's conclusion that the pots are carried by the people who left the bones. It is entirely possible that the pots belong to some aboriginals who housed the migrants whose bones contained high level of metallic element. The arguer's allegation is ungrounded before excluding the possibilities I discuss here.

In conclusion, this argument lacks credibility because the arguer fails to provide tenable evidence to support his conclusion. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to figure out the origins of the pots. Also, some detailed and direct evidence concerning about relationship between the pots and the bones, documentation records for example, are needed.


有拍必回

[ 本帖最后由 xinxinw 于 2006-7-26 13:28 编辑 ]

hes2000abcUID: 2154084

argu33
The arguer raises the conclusion that the variously scattered pots were spread by migration, not trade, by citing the association of metallic element in the bones, which were found near a few pots sites, and migrated people. The argument seems reasonable at first glance. But if we examine it carefully, we would find that the arguer commits several logic fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the wonder of archaeologists how the pots were somehow spread are based on the rootless assumption that the（去掉） all the pots were made in one place. Distinctive in shape, as was mentioned in the argument, the pots are entirely possible to be（being好一些） produced by different craftsmen in different places, and have stayed in the same place all through the years. If true, this case would serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assertion that the pots were spread afterwards.(这个论据感觉有些牵强)

Secondly, the arguer commits the false dilemma(文章就认为是by migration,没有dilemma) in the presumption that the pots were spread either by migration, or trade. Perhaps the two ways of spreading pots co-existed in the history, that is, migrants carried a part of pots to distant places and the trade spread the other ones(others). Or, there are some other possible approaches to disperse the pots, by marriage between different races as dowries and by wars as trophies, for instance. Without ruling out all the possibilities I listed above, the arguer's deduction is unconvincing.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer fails to provided substantial evidence to validate that the bones found near the pots are(were) from migrants, and it was the migrants who spread the pots. For one thing, the arguer provides no information on whether the metallic element contained in foods would remain in bones. Also, there are other possible sources of metallic element like the soil where the bodies are buried, which could also affect the levels of the metallic element in human bones after death. For another thing, the concurrence of the bones and pots in the same place lends little support to arguer's conclusion that the pots are (were) carried by the people who left the bones. It is entirely possible that the pots belong to some aboriginals who housed the migrants whose bones contained high level of metallic element. The arguer's allegation is ungrounded before excluding the possibilities I discuss here. (两点中的可能性说的很好,精彩!)
In conclusion, this argument lacks credibility because the arguer fails to provide tenable evidence to support his conclusion. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to figure out the origins of the pots. Also, some detailed and direct evidence concerning about relationship between the pots and the bones, documentation records for example, are needed.

感觉词汇很丰富,很多句子的表达,词汇的用法值得学习,但也有刻意用词的嫌疑,有词感觉用得不是很地道.第二个论据有些牵强,第四段的两个论据很精彩,可以分开来写.
本人是菜鸟,语气严重了,呵呵,希望不要见怪,大家共同进步.

[ 本帖最后由 hes2000abc 于 2006-7-26 23:42 编辑 ]

applehattieUID: 2195344

1. The wonder of archaeologists how the pots were widely spread are (is) based on the rootless assumption that the all the pots were made in one place.
2. The arguer commits the false dilemma in the presumption that the pots were spread either by migration or trade.
3. The arguer fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that the bones found near the pots are from migrants who spread the pots. (Metallic elements in food may not have remained in bones, other sources of metallic elements)
看了xinxinw的提纲才觉得自己想了半天的只是打了一个擦边球，前面两句话是文章假设的前提，后面都是具体的论证，应该先攻击这些rootless assumption，呵呵，
The arguer raises the conclusion that the variously scattered pots were spread by migration, not trade, by citing the association of metallic element in the bones, which were found near a few pots sites, and migrated people. The argument seems reasonable at first glance. But if we examine it carefully, we would find that the arguer commits several logic fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the wonder of archaeologists how the pots were somehow spread are based on the rootless assumption that the all the pots were made in one place. Distinctive in shape, as was mentioned in the argument, the pots are entirely possible to be produced by different craftsmen in different places, and have stay （这个词用的不贴切，been gathered）in the same place all through the years. If true, this case would serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assertion that the pots were spread afterwards.

Secondly, the arguer commits the false dilemma in the presumption that the pots were spread either by migration, or trade. Perhaps the two ways of spreading pots co-existed in the history, that is, migrants carried a part of pots to distant places and the trade spread the other ones. Or, there are some other possible approaches to disperse the pots, by marriage between different races as dowries and by wars as trophies, for instance. Without ruling out all the possibilities I listed above, the arguer's deduction is unconvincing.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer fails to provided substantial evidence to validate that the bones found near the pots are from migrants, and it was the migrants who spread the pots. For one thing, the arguer provides no information on whether the metallic element contained in foods would remain in bones. Also, there are other possible sources of metallic element like the soil where the bodies are buried, which could also affect the levels of the metallic element in human bones after death. For another thing, the concurrence of the bones and pots in the same place lends little support to arguer's conclusion that the pots are carried by the people who left the bones. It is entirely possible that the pots belong to some aboriginals who housed the migrants whose bones contained high level of metallic element. The arguer's allegation is ungrounded before excluding the possibilities I discuss here.

In conclusion, this argument lacks credibility because the arguer fails to provide tenable evidence to support his conclusion. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to figure out the origins of the pots. Also, some detailed and direct evidence(复数吧) concerning about relationship between the pots and the bones, documentation records for example, are needed.
1．总体来说又学习了一把，无论从论点的把握，还是文章的遣词造句都是很棒的
2．但是我觉得一二两点是重点，应该重点攻击，这两段是不是还要多说一点啊，比如说别的可能性的时候可以多说一点，或者xinxinw还有更好的见解，呵呵

monica98UID: 2124796

拍拍你的，其实算是学习^_^

The arguer raises the conclusion that the variously scattered pots were spread by migration, not trade, by citing the association of metallic element in the bones, which were found near a few pots sites, and migrated people. The argument seems reasonable at first glance. But if we examine it carefully, we would find that the arguer commits several logic fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the wonder of archaeologists how the pots were somehow spread are based on the rootless assumption that （the） all the pots were made in one place. Distinctive in shape, as was（is） mentioned in the argument, the pots are entirely possible to be produced by different craftsmen in different places, and have stay in the same place all through the years. If true, this case would serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assertion that the pots were spread afterwards.

Secondly, the arguer commits the false dilemma in the presumption that the pots were spread either by migration, or trade. Perhaps the two ways of spreading pots co-existed in the history, that is, migrants carried a part of pots to distant places and the trade spread the other ones. Or, there are some other possible approaches to disperse the pots, by marriage between different races as dowries and by wars as trophies, for instance. Without ruling out all the possibilities I listed above, the arguer's deduction is unconvincing.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer fails to provide（d） substantial evidence to validate that the bones found near the pots are from migrants, and it was the migrants who spread the pots. For one thing, the arguer provides no information on whether the metallic element contained in foods would remain in bones. Also, there are other possible sources of metallic element like the soil where the bodies are buried, which could also affect the levels of the metallic element in human bones after death. For another thing, the concurrence of the bones and pots in the same place lends little support to arguer's conclusion that the pots are carried by the people who left the bones. It is entirely possible that the pots belong to some aboriginals who housed the migrants whose bones contained high level of metallic element. The arguer's allegation is ungrounded before excluding the possibilities I discuss here.

In conclusion, this argument lacks credibility because the arguer fails to provide tenable evidence to support his conclusion. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to figure out the origins of the pots. Also, some detailed and direct evidence concerning about relationship between the pots and the bones, documentation records for example, are needed.

基本错误都找到了，行文流畅。这题就是难在怎么把错误整合起来讲，每次都过来拜读你的，确实值得学习^_^

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

个人感觉第三段讲其他原因时，说出原因后再展开一点就好了，不过已经很好了。
LZ人气旺，太厉害了，下次再请教啦

枫晰UID: 2123661

The arguer raises the conclusion that the variously scattered pots were spread by migration, not trade, by citing the association of metallic element in the bones, which were found near a few pots sites, and migrated people. The argument seems reasonable at first glance. But if we examine it carefully, we would find that the arguer commits several logic fallacies in reaching the conclusion.

In the first place, the wonder of archaeologists how the pots were somehow spread are based on the rootless assumption that the all the pots were made in one place. Distinctive in shape, as was mentioned in the argument, the pots are entirely possible to be produced by different craftsmen in different places, and have stay in the same place all through the years. If true, this case would serve as good disapproval against the arguer's assertion that the pots were spread afterwards.

Secondly, the arguer commits the false dilemma in the presumption that the pots were spread either by migration, or trade. Perhaps the two ways of spreading pots co-existed in the history, that is, migrants carried a part of pots to distant places and the trade spread the other ones. Or, there are some other possible approaches to disperse the pots, by marriage between different races as dowries and by wars as trophies, for instance. Without ruling out all the possibilities I listed above, the arguer's deduction is unconvincing.

Before I come to my final conclusion, I would like to point out that the arguer fails to provided substantial evidence to validate that the bones found near the pots are from migrants, and it was the migrants who spread the pots. For one thing, the arguer provides no information on whether the metallic element contained in foods would remain in bones. Also, there are other possible sources of metallic element like the soil where the bodies are buried, which could also affect the levels of the metallic element in human bones after death.(好像不能说明你Ts中的错误) For another thing, the concurrence of the bones and pots in the same place lends little support to arguer's conclusion that the pots are carried by the people who left the bones. It is entirely possible that the pots belong to some aboriginals who housed the migrants whose bones contained high level of metallic element. The arguer's allegation is ungrounded before excluding the possibilities I discuss here.

In conclusion, this argument lacks credibility because the arguer fails to provide tenable evidence to support his conclusion. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to figure out the origins of the pots. Also, some detailed and direct evidence concerning about relationship between the pots and the bones, documentation records for example, are needed.

第一第二段的论证攻击到了主要的错误,能在详细一点就好了