roshb
Jul 3, 2012
Writing Feedback / 'the depth and the width of the Brim river' - GRE Argumentative [2]
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.
The argument states that the pecuilar woven baskets were made not only in Palea but also in Lithos since the two villages are separated by a deep and broad river which could not be crossed without a boat for which, no evidence could be found. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leaps of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that there was no way to travel from Palea to Lithos other than crossing the Brim river. This statement is a stretch since one could probably take another route via land and carry the Palean baskets to Lithos. Clearly, the argument would have been clearer if this was stated explicitly.
Second, as we all know rivers cause corrosion of land. Thus a narrow river today, might after a few centuries might become a larger river. The possibility or the Brim river being shallower and narrower in ancient times has not been considered. As a result of this the fact that the river might have been easier to cross in ancient times remains unaddressed. If the argument had provided evidence that the river was broad and deep since the ancient times then the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, does it mean that if evidences of Palean boats are not found , they never existed? While, it is possible that the boats were not invented then, it is also possible that they were invented but maybe we are yet to discover their remains. Without convincing answers to such questions, one is left with an impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is there for unconvinvcing. It could be strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all ther relevent facts. In order to asses the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have a full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, it is important to know the depth and the width of the Brim river at the time which is being discussed or that whether crossing the river was only way to reach Lithos from Palea. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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.
The argument states that the pecuilar woven baskets were made not only in Palea but also in Lithos since the two villages are separated by a deep and broad river which could not be crossed without a boat for which, no evidence could be found. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leaps of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that there was no way to travel from Palea to Lithos other than crossing the Brim river. This statement is a stretch since one could probably take another route via land and carry the Palean baskets to Lithos. Clearly, the argument would have been clearer if this was stated explicitly.
Second, as we all know rivers cause corrosion of land. Thus a narrow river today, might after a few centuries might become a larger river. The possibility or the Brim river being shallower and narrower in ancient times has not been considered. As a result of this the fact that the river might have been easier to cross in ancient times remains unaddressed. If the argument had provided evidence that the river was broad and deep since the ancient times then the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, does it mean that if evidences of Palean boats are not found , they never existed? While, it is possible that the boats were not invented then, it is also possible that they were invented but maybe we are yet to discover their remains. Without convincing answers to such questions, one is left with an impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is there for unconvinvcing. It could be strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all ther relevent facts. In order to asses the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have a full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, it is important to know the depth and the width of the Brim river at the time which is being discussed or that whether crossing the river was only way to reach Lithos from Palea. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.