theol
Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2020
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Korean
- Home Country
- Japan
- Current Location
- Japan
Topic:
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 made only by 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 have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
My essay:
The argument claims that the Palean baskets were not unique to Palean based on the discovery of a similar category of baskets in another place called Lithos. Although it mentions the absence of boats as a means for transport, the argument is wanting in evidence to substantiate this claim. Moreover, the likelihood of other mediums of transport, the possibility of trade and commerce between Palea and Lithos and the timeline of the provenance of the Brim River, which is essential to validate the argument, are missing.
The argument fails to take into account that there could be other means of transport to reach Lithos. Although the passage claims the Brim River could only be crossed using a boat, it does not take into account the possibility of a land area connecting the two places. The void of information about the geography of the region is a serious flaw in the passage. If a landmass were found to connect the two places, then it would pose a threat to the validity of the argument thus weakening it inevitably.
The possibility of trade and commerce between Palea and Lithos is also not taken into account. It is possible that the Palean people might have engaged in trade with the people of Lithos which could have led to the exchange of the Palean style baskets. Moreover, it is also possible that due to the traders traveling between the two places the people of Lithos adopted the Palean style of basket making. This information will substantiate the claim that Palean baskets were in fact made only by the Palean people thus rendering the argument invalid.
Most importantly, we are not provided with any data about the timeline of the provenance of the Brim river. It is possible that the river started flowing its course long after the Palean people lived in the region and traveled to Lithos. That would mean that the Palean people were actually the ones who brought their signature basket to the Lithos region. Moreover, we are not provided with any data claiming whether a certain portion of the Palean people migrated to the Lithos region and thus bringing those Palean style basket with them.
In light of the aforementioned arguments, it is evident that the passage lacks evidence and contextual information which could weaken its hypothesis and substantiate the claim that Palean basket was, in fact, a made in Palean only product.
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 made only by 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 have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
My essay:
The argument claims that the Palean baskets were not unique to Palean based on the discovery of a similar category of baskets in another place called Lithos. Although it mentions the absence of boats as a means for transport, the argument is wanting in evidence to substantiate this claim. Moreover, the likelihood of other mediums of transport, the possibility of trade and commerce between Palea and Lithos and the timeline of the provenance of the Brim River, which is essential to validate the argument, are missing.
The argument fails to take into account that there could be other means of transport to reach Lithos. Although the passage claims the Brim River could only be crossed using a boat, it does not take into account the possibility of a land area connecting the two places. The void of information about the geography of the region is a serious flaw in the passage. If a landmass were found to connect the two places, then it would pose a threat to the validity of the argument thus weakening it inevitably.
The possibility of trade and commerce between Palea and Lithos is also not taken into account. It is possible that the Palean people might have engaged in trade with the people of Lithos which could have led to the exchange of the Palean style baskets. Moreover, it is also possible that due to the traders traveling between the two places the people of Lithos adopted the Palean style of basket making. This information will substantiate the claim that Palean baskets were in fact made only by the Palean people thus rendering the argument invalid.
Most importantly, we are not provided with any data about the timeline of the provenance of the Brim river. It is possible that the river started flowing its course long after the Palean people lived in the region and traveled to Lithos. That would mean that the Palean people were actually the ones who brought their signature basket to the Lithos region. Moreover, we are not provided with any data claiming whether a certain portion of the Palean people migrated to the Lithos region and thus bringing those Palean style basket with them.
In light of the aforementioned arguments, it is evident that the passage lacks evidence and contextual information which could weaken its hypothesis and substantiate the claim that Palean basket was, in fact, a made in Palean only product.
Last edited by a moderator:
