Argument37 第一次发， 写的不好！

armstrongUID: 204256

While the arguer supports kinds of evidences to prove the conclusion of this argument that so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea, on balance, Lithos have also existed "Palean" basket, the argument is not well-reasoned at all and seems to me a wholly ramshackle one needed to examine closely and minutely.
   Lead out, according to stubborn fact that the Brim River, which spans between Palean and Lithos, is rather broad and deep, the arguer unfairly assumes that by boat was exclusive mean and channel that Palean arrived at Litho in that time. However, we are not informed whether this is case. It is possible that by virtue of other some paths, Paleans could shun this river to reach Lithos. It is also likely that in that era, people had had rich knowledge and experiences about constructing bridge, so that even if people is the absence of technology that produced boat, people also got through this river. In the mean time, the arguer fails to represent any evident that the Brim River must also be so deep and broad in ancient age. Absent evidence of support this inference, it is just as likely that owing to giant geological and climatic change, including earthquake, flood, the river had gradually changed from narrow and shallow into the today's style. Therefore, This argument is unwarranted without ruling our such possible.
  In addition, only relying on failing to find any evidence that Palean had boat in that age, the arguer curtly deducts the result that the Palean had failed to make use of boat as a tool to convey goods. Perhaps, the evidence has yet to discover. Even if the ancient Palea indeed had yet to invite boat, common sense and life experience informs me that through a myriad of other means Palea people could also reach the other side of the Brim river, for example, swimming, taken advantage of wood and so forth. Without ruling out these and other possible causes, the arguer's recommendation is diluted as a result.
   Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of "hasty generalization" that only depending on the assumption that Palea was  full of nuts, berrires, and small game, which is, of course, unwarranted, the arguer concludes that there are not any reason to render the ancient Paleans to cross the river. However, this assumption is so unpersuasive as a result. Perhaps they need to exchange some quotidian tool with Lithos, which they had not. Or perhaps the Litho's land was very rich compared to Palea, so that they were driven by interest to conquer the Litho. To do this, Palean's baskets were carried to Litho. If so, the arguer's recommendation would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because  the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To bolster the conclusion the arguer must provide more and better persuasive evidences.

seraph_hydeUID: 184809

写的太好了，我真的是不知道该怎么改，错误找的很全，分析很到位很有力，好文章！

udoUID: 2114276

Therefore, This argument is unwarranted without ruling our such possible.

ruling our such possible.
ruling out
possible一般是adj吧，是不是该用possibility？

[ Last edited by udo on 2005-7-7 at 11:56 ]

udoUID: 2114276

armstrong
佩服佩服
你的语言很棒
你的模板也好强啊

commhcUID: 192491

While the arguer supports kinds of evidences to prove the conclusion of this argument that so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea, on balance, Lithos have also existed "Palean" basket, the argument is not well-reasoned at all and seems to me a wholly ramshackle one needed to examine closely and minutely.

Lead out, according to stubborn fact that the Brim River, which spans between Palean and Lithos, is rather broad and deep, the arguer unfairly assumes that by boat was[the] exclusive mean [and channel deleted] that Palean arrived at Litho in that time. However, we are not informed whether this is case. It is possible that by virtue of other some paths, Paleans could shun this river to reach Lithos. It is also likely that in that era, people had had rich knowledge and experiences about constructing bridge, so that even if people is [in] the absence of technology that produced boat, people also got through this river. In[At] the mean time, the arguer fails to represent[error! Present, offer or give] any evident that the Brim River must also be so deep and broad in ancient age. Absent evidence of support this inference, it is just as likely that owing to giant geological and climatic change, including earthquake, flood, the river had gradually changed from narrow and shallow into the today's style. Therefore, This [this]argument is unwarranted without ruling our[out] such possible[possibility]. 写得好象ISSUE呵，不过还是很不错得，主要要形成自己的风格，而且每个题都有话说。

In addition, only relying on failing to find[the failure of finding]any evidence that Palean had boat in that age, the arguer curtly deducts the result that the Palean had failed to make use of boat as a tool to convey goods. Perhaps, the evidence has yet to discover. Even if the ancient Palea indeed had yet to invite [invent]boat, common sense and life experience informs me that through a myriad of other means Palea people could also reach the other side of the Brim river, for example, swimming, taken advantage of wood and so forth. Without ruling out these and other possible causes, the arguer's recommendation is diluted as a result. [the conclusion of the arguer is weak in persuasion]

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of "hasty generalization" that only depending on the assumption that Palea was  full of nuts, berrires, and small game, which is, of course, unwarranted, the arguer concludes that there are not any reason to render the ancient Paleans to cross the river. However, this assumption is so unpersuasive as a result. Perhaps they need to exchange some quotidian tool with Lithos, which they had not. Or perhaps the Litho's land was very rich compared to Palea, so that they were driven by interest to conquer the Litho. [; ），这都背你想到了，呵呵]To do this, Palean's baskets were carried to Litho. [Consequently, the baskets were brought by Palean to the Litho]If so, [If it is the case, you have repeat ‘if so’ to many times]the arguer's recommendation would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because  the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To bolster the conclusion the arguer must provide more and better persuasive evidences.
第一片能写成这样，不错了，关键要抓住最重要的fallacy, 然后attack.

zhaoll99UID: 2102916

刚开始复习，很佩服你的写作能力，有一点建议，不知道对不对

While the arguer supports kinds of evidences to prove the conclusion of this argument that so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea, on balance, Lithos have also existed "Palean" basket, the argument is not well-reasoned at all and seems to me a wholly ramshackle one needed to examine closely and minutely.

Lead out, [according to stubborn fact that the Brim River, which spans between Palean and Lithos, is rather broad and deep,]（偶觉得这句话应去掉，论者假设船是唯一的交通工具，不是根据河水深得出来的） the arguer unfairly assumes that by boat was[the] exclusive mean [and channel deleted] that Palean arrived at Litho in that time. However, we are not informed whether this is case. It is possible that by virtue of other some paths, Paleans could shun this river to reach Lithos. It is also likely that in that era, people had had rich knowledge and experiences about constructing bridge, so that even if people is [in] the absence of technology that produced boat, people also got through this river. In[At] the mean time, the arguer fails to represent[error! Present, offer or give] any evident that the Brim River must also be so deep and broad in ancient age. Absent evidence of support this inference, it is just as likely that owing to giant geological and climatic change, including earthquake, flood, the river had gradually changed from narrow and shallow into the today's style. Therefore, This [this]argument is unwarranted without ruling our[out] such possible[possibility]. 写得好象ISSUE呵，不过还是很不错得，主要要形成自己的风格，而且每个题都有话说。

In addition, only relying on failing to find[the failure of finding]any evidence that Palean had boat in that age, the arguer curtly deducts the result that the Palean had failed to make use of boat as a tool to convey goods. Perhaps, the evidence has yet to discover. Even if the ancient Palea indeed had yet to invite [invent]boat, common sense and life experience informs me that through a myriad of other means Palea people could also reach the other side of the Brim river, for example, swimming, taken advantage of wood and so forth. Without ruling out these and other possible causes, the arguer's recommendation is diluted as a result. [the conclusion of the arguer is weak in persuasion]

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of "hasty generalization" that only depending on the assumption that Palea was  full of nuts, berrires, and small game, which is, of course, unwarranted, the arguer concludes that there are not any reason to render the ancient Paleans to cross the river. However, this assumption is so unpersuasive as a result. Perhaps they need to exchange some quotidian tool with Lithos, which they had not. Or perhaps the Litho's land was very rich compared to Palea, so that they were driven by interest to conquer the Litho. [; ），这都背你想到了，呵呵]To do this, Palean's baskets were carried to Litho. [Consequently, the baskets were brought by Palean to the Litho]If so, [If it is the case, you have repeat ‘if so’ to many times]the arguer's recommendation would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because  the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To bolster the conclusion the arguer must provide more and better persuasive evidences.