argument37 同主题写作

seraph_hydeUID：184809

Argument 37
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.

Before make the conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Palea, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from other angles. The author seems to assume that since there is no possibility or no need for the Paleans to cross the river, the basket found across the river proved that these baskets are not unique to Palea without examining any other factors that may affect the conclusion.

Firstly, the author unfairly assumed that the Paleans cannot cross the river by boats. It is said that there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats, but no evidence do not equal to no boats. Perhaps Paleans' boats were made of tree bark or a kind of very strong grass that can carry them across the river yet easily eroded that no evidence had left, or some fragment of the boats might had been buried underground, but no one every found them. In addition, although boats that can carry groups of people were not developed until Palean people disappeared, what about little boat that can carry few people or canoes? Had they been developed back then? We just do not know.

Another, even if the Paleans do not have boats, can they cross the river in other ways? Perhaps there was no river back in that times that Paleans can walk to Lithos, or even if there was a river back then, the river may not be broad and deep as it is now that it is possible for the Paleans to swim across the river.

Secondly, Even though the Palens do not have to go across the river for what they already had, it does not necessrarily mean that they would not do so. Human are always curious about things that they do not know, even back into ancient times. It may be the case that Paleans go across the river simplely out of the inherent curiosity of human. It may also be the case that the Paleans went across the river for something they do not have in Palea. For example, meat, which was not able to get because there might be no animal around Palea. Further, the Paleans may reach Lithos out of an accident. Perhaps, some of them were fishing on the river but were accidently blew to Lithos with baskets on their boats by a sudden storm.

Thirdly, Even if Paleans had never reached Lithos, the basket may be brought to the Lithos in other ways. Perhaps the basket was dropped in the river by the Paleans and then taken to the other side of the river by the fluid and then found and kept by the Lithos. It is also possible that although Paleans can not cross the river but Lithos people can, and the basket was taken across the river by them.

In conclusion, the argument can be more convincing if more evidence can be provided. It can be further improved by taking into account more factors that may affected the conc

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-11 at 15:39 ]

seraph_hydeUID：184809

我顶！！！

udoUID：2114276

but no one every found them.
ever吧

udoUID：2114276

For example, meat, which was not able to get because there might be no animal around Palea.

注意，题中说了有small game了

shanekunUID：2104358

Before make the conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Palea, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from other angles. The author seems to assume that since there is no possibility or no need for the Paleans to cross the river, the basket found <<<in another villiage>>>across the river proved that these baskets are not unique to Palea without examining any other factors that may affect the conclusion.

Firstly, the author unfairly assumed that the Paleans cannot cross the river by boats. It is said that there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats, but no evidence do not equal to no boats. <<<我感觉这里的推理递进关系有一点不顺，既然把1只有靠船渡河2没有船的证据3只有靠大船才能运篮子三个点放在一起说，不妨采用层层让步的关系，例如1---〉3--〉2的顺序来展开〉〉〉Perhaps Paleans' boats were made of tree bark or a kind of very strong grass that can carry them across the river yet easily eroded that no evidence had left, or some fragment of the boats might had been buried underground, but no one every found them. In addition, although boats that can carry groups of people were not developed until Palean people disappeared, what about little boat that can carry few people or canoes? Had they been developed back then? We just do not know.

Another,<<<也许可以这样写？ 不清楚。我还是乖乖的用Furthermore，Moreover：）>>> even if the Paleans do not have boats, can they cross the river in other ways? Perhaps there was no river back in that times that Paleans can walk to Lithos, or even if there was a river back then, the river may not be broad and deep as it is now that it is possible for the Paleans to swim across the river.

Secondly, Even though the Palens do not have to go across the river for what they already had, it does not necessrarily mean that they would not do so<<<mean....改为preclude other possibilites>>>. Human are always curious about things that they do not know, even back into ancient times. It may be the case that Paleans go across the river simplely out of the inherent curiosity of human. It may also be the case that the Paleans went across the river for something they do not have in Palea. For example, meat which was not able to get because there might be no animal around Palea. ,<<<提干中已经提到small goods, 这里的meat一说好像不成立>>>Further, the Paleans may reach Lithos out of an accident. Perhaps, some of them were fishing on the river but were accidently blew to Lithos with baskets on their boats by a sudden storm.

Thirdly, Even if Paleans had never reached Lithos, the basket may be brought to the Lithos in other ways. Perhaps the basket was dropped in the river by the Paleans and then taken to the other side of the river by the fluid and then found and kept by the Lithos. It is also possible that although Paleans can not cross the river but Lithos people can, and the basket was taken across the river by them.<<<这里的几点实际上是并立的可能吧，不妨可以用问句？>>>

In conclusion, the argument can be more convincing if more evidence can be provided. It can be further improved by taking into account more factors that may affected the conc<<是否把问题指出比给出建议更重要？同样不清楚〉〉〉


以上是我的看法，欢迎提出建议和讨论，谢谢。BTW：这也是我的第一篇。。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=296209

michaeldoUID：190479

小弟现在才写了几片,不限时还写不好,郁闷.八月九考了

mkb57288UID：2105771

个人认为语言有些像issue哦:)另外看过题目觉得最大的逻辑漏洞在于，即使P人没有能力和动机把篮子带到对岸，也不代表L人没有能力把篮子带过去:L，需要综合两地的文化风格，技术水平综合考虑:)

mkb57288UID：2105771

我的第一篇argument有拍必回
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102

mbxuUID：2120330

Why do Chinese students like using the words such as " Firstly\Secondly\Thirdly"?One of my foreign English teachers said it's bad. On one hand, the reader will feel it's boring; on the other hand, it's not necessary to use -ly even if we use them.