May 2009 - May 2017 论坛八周年-你的足迹,我的骄傲



查看: 340|回复: 0

[G作文-求改] Argument1 求狠批

[复制链接] |试试Instant~ |关注本帖
wkd22775 发表于 2015-11-20 10:56:34 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式


您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?获取更多干活,快来注册

本帖最后由 wkd22775 于 2015-11-20 10:59 编辑

Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern havepreviously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric villageof Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Paleanpeople. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean"basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The BrimRiver is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed itonly by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that theso-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is neededto evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken orstrengthen the argument.

The argument above is well-presented andappears to be sound at first glance. Because there is a river, Brim River,which is very deep and broad, but no Palean boats have been found. Thus, theconclusion suggests that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts areconcerned, it is easy to see there are several grave fallacies in itsassumptions as well as commits a false analogy.

To begin with, the argument is presumed thatthe river Brim River was as deep and abroad as now. But no evidence about thisis provided. It would be helpful for verifying the assumption if the record ofgeographical vicissitude is exhibited. Even though the assumption is right, theargument, however, fails to take into account that ancient Paleans could arriveat Lithos not only by crossing the river but also through land route. To provethe validity of the conclusion, the arguer should further demonstrate that noother courses between Palea and Lithos but the river.

In addition, based on the fact that no Paleanboats have been found, the argument comes to the conclusion that Palea had noboats and in this case, the ancient Paleans couldn’t have crossed the river. However,no one can prove the nonexistence just because he can’t prove existence. Forexample, no aliens have been found, but no one dare to say there are no aliens.Any judgements are based on knowledge held by now, but this doesn’t meanknowledge held by now is comprehensive.

Even though, Palean had no boats and theancient Paleans couldn’t have crossed the river, there might be still otherapproaches to transfer the so-called Palean baskets. While the ancient Paleanscouldn’t have crossed the river, people in Lithos were intelligent enough toinvent boats. Who knows? Were there any boats found in Lithos? Obviously, thearguer has much work in investigating the circumstances in Lithos so as tobrace his opinion that the Palean baskets couldn’t have crossed the river byboats.

In all, the arguer should devote more incollecting evidence that both the ancient Paleans and people in Lithos had noboats as well as there were no other ways to transfer the so-called Paleanbaskets from Palean to Lithos.

补充内容 (2015-11-24 11:06):



一亩三分地推荐上一条 /5 下一条

手机版|小黑屋|一亩三分地论坛声明 ( 沪ICP备11015994号 )

custom counter

GMT+8, 2017-5-24 17:10

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. Design By HUXTeam

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表