Argument37 居然写了一个小时，呜呜……请大家随便赐教

Archer1123UID：206148

第一篇Argument,痛苦，居然写了一个小时，呜呜……请大家随便赐教，谢谢
偶也会评你们的，但是不一定能提出好建议，
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.


The author’s conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Paler is unfounded and would not be accepted under the close scrutiny. The archaeologists discover such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, which is an ancient village across the Brim River from Pales, and the argument deduces that the ancient Paleans could not and had no need to cross the river based on some reasons that seems ostensibly logical. In fact, the evidences and information given by the author do not support the conclusion. That’s to say, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the questionable assumption.

Firstly, the author does not provide the sufficient evidence to convince that the ancient Paleans really did not across the river and arrive at the ancient village, Lithos. How about the Brim River conditions in the ancient times? Was it still very deep and broad like the author describes? It is possible that the Brim River was very shallow and narrow, the ancient Palean, even the little children, were easy to across the river without any other vehicles, such as boats. Even if the river was very deep and broad in ancient times, it does not indicate the people must across it by boat, maybe the ancient Palean had invented other vehicles to across the river, which we have no idea of now, that is to say, the evidence or the remains of the vehicles not be found or was destroyed at all. Even if the Palean across the river only by boat, but the author only states that " there is no evidence that the Palean had boats", "no evidence" does not mean the matter is real true. Maybe one day in the future, the archaeologists will find the evidence that the Palean had the boats. Moreover, the Palean could across the river by a small boat, which capable maybe one or two people with some goods. It is not necessary for them to have the boats which can carry groups of people and cargo.

Secondly, the argument simply ignores the human being various social activities. The author indicates the Palean had no need to cross the river because the Palean could gain abundant foods from the woods around Palea, such as the nuts, berries and small game without crossing the river. For one thing, the author did clearly explain whether the woods around Palea were still fruitful in ancient time or not? Moreover, how about the Palean the diet habits and taste, they were satisfaction with the nuts, berries and only play small game, maybe Palean liked eating other food which does not exist around Palea, just lay in the other side of river, where the Lithos located. For another, it is doubtful that the human being will never leave the place where he can be raised well. In my opinion, the Palean maybe across the river and arrive at the Lithos for many reasons, for instance, if a Palean married the Litho, maybe the Palean carry one basket as the present. Another possibility is that Palean and Lithos people maybe bartered for each other in order to improve their live level, maybe the Palean people change other foods with the Palean basket, and so on.

Last but not least, the argument fails to rule out the other possibility that the Palean basket is found in Lithos village. Maybe the Palean fell the basket in the river and it floated following the river, at last grounded to the Lithos lands.

From what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is clearly that argument’s conclusion is groundless and unreasonable. The author needs to provide more evidences and information to support the conclusion.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-15 at 22:38 ]

dieforbeauty_97UID：206050

Argument 37.
水平有限，呵呵
能告诉我怎么才能写这么多字么？

The author’s conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Paler is unfounded and would not be accepted under the close scrutiny. The archaeologists discover such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, which is an ancient village across the Brim River from Pales, and（我觉得两个分句的并列关系不明显） the argument deduces that the ancient Paleans could not and had no need to cross the river based on some reasons that seems ostensibly logical. In fact, the evidences and information given by the author do not support the conclusion. That’s to say, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the questionable assumption.（证据不足和假设是两种逻辑错误）

Firstly, the author does not provide the sufficient evidence to convince that the ancient Paleans really did not across the river and arrive at the ancient village, Lithos. How about the Brim River conditions in the ancient times? Was it still very deep and broad like the author describes? It is possible that the Brim River was very shallow and narrow, the ancient Palean, even the little children, were easy to across the river without any other vehicles, such as boats. Even if the river was very deep and broad in ancient times, it does not indicate the people must across it by boat, maybe the ancient Palean had invented other vehicles to across the river, which we have no idea of now, that is to say, the evidence or the remains of the vehicles（does） not be found or was destroyed at all. Even if the Palean(复数吧) across the river only by boat, but the author only states that " there is no evidence that the Palean had boats", "no evidence" does not mean the matter is real true. Maybe one day in the future, the archaeologists will find the evidence that the Palean had the boats. Moreover, the Palean could across the river by a small boat, which capable（capacity你的意思是容量么） maybe one or two people with some goods. It is not necessary for them to have the boats which can carry groups of people and cargo.

Secondly, the argument simply ignores the human being various social activities. The author indicates the Palean had no need to cross the river because the Palean could gain abundant foods from the woods around Palea, such as the nuts, berries and small game without crossing the river. For one thing, the author did（should） clearly explain whether the woods around Palea were still fruitful in ancient time or not? Moreover, how about the Palean(‘s) the diet habits and taste, they were satisfaction with the nuts, berries and only play small game,(我觉得这句好象和前一分句应该分开或者需要一些连接词) maybe Palean liked eating other food which does not exist around Palea, just lay in the other side of river, where the Lithos located. For another, it is doubtful that the human being will never leave the place where he can be raised well. In my opinion, the Palean maybe across（过去时，你告诉我的） the river and arrive at the Lithos for many reasons, for instance, if a Palean married the Litho, maybe the Palean carry one basket as the present. Another possibility is that Palean and Lithos people maybe bartered for each other in order to improve their live level, maybe the Palean people change other foods with the Palean basket, and so on.

Last but not least, the argument fails to rule out the other possibility（other possibilities） that the Palean basket is found in Lithos village. Maybe the Palean fell the basket in the river and it floated following the river, at last grounded to the Lithos lands.

From what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is clearly that argument’s conclusion is groundless and unreasonable. The author needs to provide more evidences and information to support the conclusion.

staralwaysUID：193479

The author’s conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Paler is unfounded and would not be accepted under the close scrutiny. [一上来就指出逻辑性不够，不错。] The archaeologists discover such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, which is an ancient village across the Brim River from Pales, and the argument deduces that the ancient Paleans could not and had no need to cross the river based on some reasons that seems ostensibly logical. In fact, the evidences and information given by the author do not support the conclusion. That’s to say, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the questionable assumption. [开头尽管有小部分的复述，但是总结的还是不错的。]

Firstly, the author does not provide the [多余，去掉。] sufficient evidence to convince that the ancient Paleans really did not across the river and arrive at the ancient village, Lithos. How about the Brim River’s conditions in the ancient times? Was it still very deep and broad like the author describes? It is possible that the Brim River was very shallow and narrow, the ancient Palean, even the little children, were easy to [could easily] across the river without any other vehicles, such as boats. Even if the river was very deep and broad in ancient times, it does not indicate the people must across it by boat, maybe the ancient Palean had invented other vehicles to across the river, which we have no idea of now, that is to say, the evidence or the remains of the vehicles not be found or was destroyed at all. Even if the Palean across the river only by boat, but the author only states that " there is no evidence that the Palean had boats", "no evidence" does not mean the matter is real true. Maybe one day in the future, the archaeologists will find the evidence that the Palean had the boats. Moreover, the Palean could across the river by a small boat, which capable [was capable of] maybe one or two people with some goods. It is not necessary for them to have the boats which can carry groups of people and cargo. [这段的攻击不错，很有层次感。]

Secondly, the argument simply ignores the human being’s various social activities. The author indicates the Palean had no need to cross the river because the Palean could gain abundant foods from the woods around Palea, such as the nuts, berries and small game without crossing the river. For one thing, [does] the author did [去掉。] clearly explain whether the woods around Palea were still fruitful in ancient time or not? Moreover, how about the Palean the diet habits and taste, they were satisfaction with the nuts, berries and only play small game, [这句感觉有点混乱，直接改了：whether the Palean were satisfied with the nuts, berries and only playing small game?] Maybe Palean liked eating other food which does [did] not exist around Palea, just lay in the other side of river, where the Lithos located. For another, it is doubtful that the human being will never leave the place where he can be raised well. In my opinion, the Palean maybe [might] across the river and arrive at the Lithos for many reasons, for instance, if a Palean married the Litho, maybe the Palean carry one basket as the present. Another possibility is that Palean and Lithos people maybe bartered for each other in order to improve their live level [living conditions], maybe the Palean people change other foods with the Palean basket, and so on. [段落结尾处考虑做个小结。]

Last but not least, the argument fails to rule out the other possibility that the Palean basket is found in Lithos village. Maybe the Palean fell the basket in the river and it floated following the river, at last grounded to the Lithos lands. [这个想法很好，不过感觉和上一段说的内容相似，考虑合并起来；或者两个段落的篇幅互相协调一下。]

From what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is clearly that argument’s conclusion is groundless and unreasonable. The author needs to provide more evidences and information to support the conclusion. [这句话几乎没有什么作用。]


这篇argument，正文部分对于各自逻辑错误的攻击都做的不错，但是感觉有欠缺的是段落之间的联系不强。

Archer1123UID：206148

谢谢两位指点

iamfeatherUID：202850

Argument37 居然写了一个小时，呜呜……请大家随便赐教

第一篇Argument,痛苦，居然写了一个小时，呜呜……请大家随便赐教，谢谢偶也会评你们的，但是不一定能提出好建议，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.


The author’s conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Paler is unfounded and would not be accepted under the close scrutiny. The archaeologists discover such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, which is an ancient village across the Brim River from Pales, and the argument deduces that the ancient Paleans could not and had no need to cross the river based on some reasons that seems ostensibly logical. In fact, the evidences and information given by the author do not support the conclusion. That’s to say, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the questionable assumption.

Firstly, the author does not provide the sufficient evidence to convince that the ancient Paleans really did not across the river and arrive at the ancient village, Lithos. How about the Brim River conditions in the ancient times? Was it still very deep and broad like the author describes? It is possible that the Brim River was very shallow and narrow, the ancient Palean, even the little children, were easy to across the river without any other vehicles, such as boats. Even if the river was very deep and broad in ancient times, it does not indicate the people must across it by boat, maybe the ancient Palean had invented other vehicles to across the river, which we have no idea of now, that is to say, the evidence or the remains of the vehicles not be found or was destroyed at all. Even if the Palean across the river only by boat, but the author only states that " there is no evidence that the Palean had boats", "no evidence" does not mean the matter is real true. Maybe one day in the future, the archaeologists will find the evidence that the Palean had the boats. Moreover, the Palean could across the river by a small boat, which capable maybe one or two people with some goods. It is not necessary for them to have the boats which can carry groups of people and cargo.

Secondly, the argument simply ignores the human being various social activities. The author indicates the Palean had no need to cross the river because the Palean could gain abundant foods from the woods around Palea, such as the nuts, berries and small game without crossing the river. For one thing, the author did clearly explain whether the woods around Palea were still fruitful in ancient time or not? Moreover, how about the Palean the diet habits and taste, they were satisfaction with the nuts, berries and only play small game, maybe Palean liked eating other food which does not exist around Palea, just lay in the other side of river, where the Lithos located. For another, it is doubtful that the human being will never leave the place where he can be raised well. In my opinion, the Palean maybe across the river and arrive at the Lithos for many reasons, for instance, if a Palean married the Litho, maybe the Palean carry one basket as the present. Another possibility is that Palean and Lithos people maybe bartered for each other in order to improve their live level, maybe the Palean people change other foods with the Palean basket, and so on.

Last but not least, the argument fails to rule out the other possibility that the Palean basket is found in Lithos village. Maybe the Palean fell the basket in the river and it floated following the river, at last grounded to the Lithos lands.

From what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is clearly that argument’s conclusion is groundless and unreasonable. The author needs to provide more evidences and information to support the conclusion.