Argument37 同主题写作，交作业了！第一次写这么多字。

love-yogurtUID：171347

Argument37  592 words  限时失败
我的第二段的驳斥点同主题写作中victoriazhizhi没有提到，大家看看有没有道理！
------题目------
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.
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea, because such basket was also discovered in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea, and no evidence indicates that it was shiped from Palea. This argument suffers from several logical mistakes.

In the first place, the arguer fails to take the geological change in to consideration. Common sense informs us that the terrain may have had tremendous change from the ancient time. the Brim River is very deep and broad nowadays, no evidence was provided how it was in the time when Palean lived. There is possibility that no river was flowing between the two, and the river changed its channel some time after the baskets was transported to Lithos. There is also possibility that the river was not as deep and broad as we see today, and can be paddled accross. Likely, although the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game now, whether the Paleans faced the same situation remains doubt. Unless the arguer provide additional information about the terrain when Paleans lived, the argument is groundless.

In the second place, given that the Brim River is very deep and broad in ancient times, the argument problematic in the deduction of the Palean people can not cross the river. Firstly, the arguer unfairly assumes that no evidence suggests that Paleans had boats, so they do not have. Perhaps no people have had in-depth study about this, and in future such evidence would be discovered. Secondly, even if the Paleans did not have boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo, they may have rafts or other transportation tools. Boats capable of carrying large groups of people and cargo is too big to serve the Palean's need. A boat being capable of carrying one people and some baskets if exists is an enough evidence to weak this argument. In addition, the arguer made a hasty conclusion that the ancient Paleans could only have crossed the river by boat, because it is very deep and broad. Other possible ways of going across the river is not taken into account, such as swimming. If so, even if they did not have boats, the baskets can be carried to the other side of the river.

Moreover, the arguer made another unwarranted assumption that Paleans would have had no need to cross the river. Granted that the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game, and Paleans have enough to eat, they may go cross the river for other pursues. For example, they may know that there exists other racial on the other side of the river, and want to communicate with them. Or they may be unsatisfied with their current available food, and want to find other kinds of fruits to eat.

Finally, the arguer fails to study the situation of Lithos. Perhaps the people in Lithos have the need to visit the Palea because of a shortage of food or other reasons. And perhaps they can produce boats or have other means to cross the river, if it ever existed. If so, they could bring the baskets back to Lithos.

All in all, from what has been discussed, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide more information about the ancient terrain of Palea and make sure that the Paleans could not and did not want to go cross the river and so does people in Lithos.

[ Last edited by love-yogurt on 2005-7-26 at 12:58 ]

love-yogurtUID：171347

怎么没有人理呢？！
大家帮我打个分嘛！
先谢谢了！

xiliustreamUID：205175

先顶一下，马上看

xiliustreamUID：205175

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea, because such basket was also discovered in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea, and no evidence indicates that it was shiped from Palea. This argument suffers from several logical mistakes.

In the first place, the arguer fails to take the geological change in to consideration. Common sense informs us that the terrain may have had tremendous change from the ancient time. the Brim River is very deep and broad nowadays, no evidence was provided how it was in the time when Palean lived. There is possibility that no river was flowing between the two, and the river changed its channel some time after the baskets was transported to Lithos. There is also possibility that the river was not as deep and broad as we see today, and can be paddled accross. Likely, although the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game now, whether the Paleans faced the same situation remains doubt. Unless the arguer provide additional information about the terrain when Paleans lived, the argument is groundless.
第三条食物是否丰富好象不属于地质变化，不如在开头句加一个environmental

In the second place, given that the Brim River is very deep and broad in ancient times, the argument problematic in the deduction of the Palean people can not cross the river. Firstly, the arguer unfairly assumes that no evidence suggests that Paleans had boats, so they do not have. Perhaps no people have had in-depth study about this, and in future such evidence would be discovered. Secondly, even if the Paleans did not have boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo, they may have rafts or other transportation tools. Boats capable of carrying large groups of people and cargo is too big to serve the Palean's need ( too big to是太而不能的意思，是容量太大没必要，不是太大了反而不行)，. A boat being capable of carrying one people and some baskets if exists is an enough evidence to weak this argument. In addition, the arguer made a hasty conclusion that the ancient Paleans could only have crossed the river by boat, because it is very deep and broad. Other possible ways of going across the river is not taken into account, such as swimming. (这个比较难以想象，游泳运篮子过去，好象难度很大…绕过河去不也可以么？)If so, even if they did not have boats, the baskets can be carried to the other side of the river.

Moreover, the arguer made another unwarranted assumption that Paleans would have had no need to cross the river. Granted that the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game, and Paleans have enough to eat, they may go cross the river for other pursues. For example, they may know that there exists other racial on the other side of the river, and want to communicate with them. Or they may be unsatisfied with their current available food, and want to find other kinds of fruits to eat.

Finally, the arguer fails to study the situation of Lithos. Perhaps the people in Lithos have the need to visit the Palea because of a shortage of food or other reasons. And perhaps they can produce boats or have other means to cross the river, if it ever existed. If so, they could bring the baskets back to Lithos.

All in all, from what has been discussed, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide more information about the ancient terrain of Palea and make sure that the Paleans could not and did not want to go cross
你这篇点都分析的很透彻，字数足有541，顶一篇issue了，问题是，如何能在30分钟内把这些都说清楚呢？

xiliustreamUID：205175

哦，字数是592是吧，那更强了，我有时候就是知道问题，但就是说不出来，有什么好建议？谢一个了