24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

iamawonder

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 238.8
散金: 17
红花: 2
帖子: 158
在线: 37.9小时
虫号: 1776377
注册: 2012-04-24

[求助] GRE作文

请您抽出一点时间，批一下的这篇A，逻辑上或者句子很多不确定，所以请帮帮忙!
这是题库里的第一道：
In this argument, the author claims that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. To substantiate the conclusion, the author cites a research that archaeologist discovered such a Palean basket in Lithos, far away from Palean. The author also cites the fact that the Brim River is very deep and broad. In addition, the author assumes that the ancient Palean could have crossed it only by boat, and yet there is no boats have been found. However, a careful examination will reveal taht the argument is unconvincing and several specific evidence is in demand to make the argument more cogent.
To begin with, the author assumes that Brim River has been being deep and broad all the time. However, the author fails to provide evidence to prove this poor assumption. Lacking such evidence, perhaps at some certain times, Brim River was so narrow and shallow that it was pretty easy for people to cross. Or perhaps there is no river at the spot where Brim River is located now. Thus, without evidence to justify whether Brim River has been being so deep and broad from the ancient to now, we can hardly accept any conclusion about the basket based on it.
Even assuming that Brim River has been being deep and broad all the time, the author should provide cogent evidence that whether Paleans crossed Brim River only by boat. Paleans might get to Lithos by alternative ways,such as mountains. Or perhaps the basket itself floated to the other side of Brim Rivr, Lithos. Without ruling out these or other possibilities, the conclusion based on it is unwarranted.
In addition, the author should provide evidence that there does exist no boat at that time. Perhaps the structure of boats was simple, or they used something like limber that can floating as boats, that we cannot identify them as the conception of today. Or perhaps the boats had decomposed or destructed so that we cannot found them. Failing to offer evidence to eliminate these possibilities, renders the conclusion based on it highly suspect.
Finally, even though Paleans cannot get to Lithos due to the reasons offered by the author, there might be another ways to transport the baskets. Perhaps people from Lithos came to Palean and brought in the baskets. Or perhaps someone coming from other places brought in the baskets to their hometown, and then the baskets were brough in Lithos. The author fails to provide such evidence to ruling out these possibilites, and so cannot justifiably conclude that the the baskets were not uniquely Palean.
In sum, the argument is not well reasoned. Before any firm conclusion is drawn, the author should provide more evidence to eliminating the doubt referred as above.

回复此楼