Writing Feedback / GRE: Palean Baskets were not uniquely Paleans [5]

Woven baskets charecterized 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 form Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crosed 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 given passage concludes that Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean based on two major pieces of evidence.One is the recent archeological discovery of Palean baskets in an ancient village across the Brim river from Palea.The other is that the Brim river is so deep and wide that it can be crossed only by boat, and no Palean boats were found in the village The proof provided in the argument is not sufficient to support the conclusion.

First, the writer provides the fact that Palean baskets were uncovered by the archeologist in the village across the Brim river, but he does not provide any specific numbers of artifacts or baskets found. Is it just a couple of baskets in one particular area or numerous baskets in different parts of the village.Just one or two baskets found does not prove that they are manufactured in Palea. It might have ended up there in some other way. For example, Strong winds might have blown it to the other side of river, or Flood could be the reason.Thus in order to strengthen the argument,the author should provide the number of village in which they are found and the number of basket recovered.

Similarly, the author assumes that there were not any boats except Palean boats. If the evidence of Lithoean boat emerge, the whole assumption will turn not only wrong but also exact opposite. Litho residents might have waded across the river with their baskets and

the basket were not Palean but Lithoean. It might establish that in fact Palean people never had their own basket. Thus if author could have proved that there were not only no Palean boats were found but the availability of any other such device to cross the river, would make the case more logical.

Furthermore,the writer argues that the river is wide and deep, and can be crossed by using boats only. The study is based on the prehistoric age. Did the river exist in those days as well? What if the river has formed after the prehistoric age? Thus the passage needs explanation in this regard as well. How old the river is according to the historians or archeologists? It makes the argument more reliable.

Thus, it can be concluded that including the quantitative data on number and places of baskets found, not existence of not only Palean but any other kind of boats to wade across the river, and the existence of river itself according to the historians; helps in order to make the argument strong or less specious.