Argument (Weakening): Baskets were not found first by Paleans!

[Mochad]

Time taken: 30 minutes exactly
Number or words: 377 (below 400 which is a drawback)
Additional Notes: Only found 2 weakening points therefore had to focus and elaborate on the first one. In addition, I was able to find a strengthening point but couldn’t use it as it would weaken my argument!

[i][color=darkblue][b]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.[/b][/i]

The author presents an unwarranted claim in that woven baskets were not exclusively produced in Palea and that the Lithosians also made such baskets. The arguments used to support such a conclusion are weak and could easily be debunked.

First of all, the author [color=red]claimed [color=green]assumed that the absence of boats meant that the connection between the two villages was missed therefore, concluded that Paleans and Lithosians never met and [color=green]that the woven baskets found in Lithos were domestically produced [color=green]without the help of Paleans. However, there exists a lot of other possibilities in which both villages could have communicated with each other. One method could be an [color=red]undirect [color=green]indirect contact through a third village. Such third village could have been buying the baskets from Palea and selling them to Lithos. In addition, the boats themselves could have been degraded and decomposed over years as they were mainly made of wood at that ancient time. And as we all know, wood could never be preserved [color=red]all that time specially if its surrounding environment is wet [color=green]for a long time if the surrounding environment was mainly wet and this is the case between both villages. Third, there could have been a bridge [color=red]conacting [color=green]connecting the two villages, and again because of the wet surrounding[color=red]s this mean of communication could have been totally disappeared. Such rational possibilities not only debunks the author’s conclusion but also supports the original finding that states that Palea was the first to make woven baskets.

Second, the time spanning the era in which both Palea and Lithos existed was not stated clearly. Such missing fact casts doubt[color=red]s on the author’s argument in that Lithos could have [color=green]been formed three hundred and even thousand years after Palea[color=green], and that Lithosians could have found some samples of Palea’s woven baskets and then imitated it. In other words, the author’s claim could have been stronger if explicitly stated that both villages came to exist at the time or that Lithos existed long time ago before Palea existed, however, failing to [color=red]do prove it his argument was too lame provide any fact about the time made his argument a lame one.

To conclude, the authors argument is [color=red]unwarrented [color=green]unwarranted as the evidence he presented regarding the absence of boats is not a proof of absence of communication as [color=red]there [color=green]other means could have existed, in addition, his failure to present a correct and accurate time in which both villages existed seriously effected the strength of his finding.

[Luschen]

Hi Mochad - welcome back! Sorry I didn’t see your essay earlier. Also, I did not realize you corrected it yourself, replacing the red text with the green, so my corrections may not be that helpful. One additional argument I came up with is that baskets float and rivers flood. Either an old basket might have been discarded into the river by a Palean resident, or the river may have flooded Palea, causing many baskets to be lost into the river. In either case the basket could have floated across the river, at which point a Lithos resident could have found the basket and taken it to Lithos to use.

@Mochad

The author presents an unwarranted claim in that [this particular type of] woven baskets were not exclusively produced in Palea and that the Lithosians also made such baskets. The arguments used to support such a conclusion are weak and could easily be debunked.

First of all, the author [color=red]claimed [color=green]assumed that the absence of boats meant that the connection between the two villages was missed therefore, concluded [and therefore concluded] that Paleans and Lithosians never met and [color=green]that the woven baskets found in Lithos were domestically produced [color=green]without the help of Paleans. However, there exists a lot of other possibilities in which both villages could have communicated with each other. One method could be an [color=red]undirect [color=green]indirect contact through a third village. Such [a ]third village could have been buying the baskets from Palea and selling them to Lithos. In addition, the boats themselves could have been degraded and decomposed over [the] years as they were mainly made of wood at that ancient time. And as we all know, wood could never be preserved [color=red]all that time [ e]specially if its surrounding environment is wet [color=green]for a long time if the surrounding environment was mainly wet and this is the case between both villages. Third, there could have been a bridge [color=red]conacting [color=green]connecting the two villages, and again because of the wet surrounding[color=red]s this mean[s ] of communication could have been totally disappeared. Such rational possibilities not only debunks[debunk] the author’s conclusion but also supports the original finding that states that Palea was the first to make woven baskets.

Second, the time spanning the era in which both Palea and Lithos existed was not stated clearly. Such missing fact casts doubt[color=red]s on the author’s argument in that Lithos could have [color=green]been formed[established] three hundred and even [or even a] thousand years after Palea[color=green], and that Lithosians could have found some samples of Palea’s woven baskets and then imitated it. In other words, the author’s claim could have been stronger if [it] explicitly stated that both villages came to exist at the time or that Lithos existed [a ]long time ago before Palea existed, however, failing to [color=red]do prove it his argument was too lame provide any fact about the time made his argument a lame {“lame” might be too informal here} one.

To conclude, the authors argument is [color=red]unwarrented [color=green]unwarranted as the evidence he presented regarding the absence of boats is not a proof of absence of communication as [color=red]there [color=green]other means could have existed, in addition, his failure to present a correct and accurate time in which both villages existed seriously effected the strength of his finding.

[Mochad]

Hello TJ, missed you thanks a lot for the corrections they were helpful