argument58。。。fantsay group。。。必回拍

foreveraUID：202035

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 58 - The following appeared in an article from a popular newsmagazine.

"In 1888 a stone was unearthed in northern Wisconsin with an inscription in an old Scandinavian alphabet and bearing the date 1362. Scandinavians were not, however, exploring or emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteenth century. Recent analysis proves, in fact, that the stone had been buried in the spot where it was found for no more than 100 years. Moreover, the community near the discovery site was home to a group of people who had formed a club to study medieval Scandinavian culture-a period that includes the fourteenth century. The stone, therefore, is not a genuine artifact of medieval Scandinavian culture inscribed in the fourteenth century but most likely a hoax perpetrated by the group."
WORDS：470          TIME：上午 00:28:00         DATE：2005-9-12

In the argument, the author asserts that the stone, marked with an inscription in an old Scandinavian alphabet, would be most likely a hoax perpetrated by a group who study medieval Scandinavian culture rather than a genuine artifact of medieval Scandinavian culture inscribed in the fourteenth century. Is the claim reasonable or suspicious? In-depth upon the evidence the author provides reveals that hastiness and carelessness seriously undermine the credibility of the argument and the author's logic suffers from some fallacies as follows.

Primarily, the author provides insufficient evidence to convince me that the stone was carved by Scandinavians and buried in the spot of its original place of its carve. It is entirely possible that the alphabet on the stone was carved by some other people except for Scandinavians who also knew old Scandinavian alphabet. Additionally, even though Scandinavians were not exploring or emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteenth century, the stone, carved by Scandinavians, was also quite likely to be carried from the original dwelling place of Scandinavians to its unearthed spot. Therefore, the difference between the place of the stone's unearthed spot and the Scandinavians' residing area would not be a sound evidence to substantiate the author's claim.

What's more, the recent analysis that the stone had been buried for on more than 100 years mentioned by the author is far from convincing to support his claim. As the author offers no evidence to show that the stone would be buried as long as it was carved, so it is quite possible that the stone was indeed carved in the fourteenth century, however it was not buried shortly after the carve was done. Perhaps, the stone remained above the land for hundreds of years as, for example, milestones or tomb stones. Under this circumstance, the recent analysis is too weak to help establish the similar allege as the author's.

In addition, the author fails to distinguish the relativity and inevitability on the relationship between the club and the stone. The possibility that the existence of the club was just coincidence can not be ruled out. Or just as the similar objects were easily found in this area and the stone was only a very common object among the ones found there., the people with a common interest founded the club to study Scandinavian culture. Or even perhaps, the people in the club have already known the existence of the stone and it is the very group of people who unearthed the stone rather than buried it. To this extent, it is unfair to state that the stone is a hoax perpetrated by the group.

To sum up, based on some groundless evidence, the argument is quite unconvincing. To better strengthen the argument, the author should better establish and confirm the credibility of his every detailed evidence.