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.
Response:
The previous archaeological assumptions seem to present a constricted view. Only because the characteristic pattern has been found in the vicinity areas previously does not mean it is restricted to that area. Furthermore, in ancient times people used to trade their goods in exchange of food. Also, fishing was a rather important food source hence the interaction between these across-the-river villages must be frequent.
In order to analyse the argument, we first and foremost need to understand the frequency and nature of the interaction between the two communities. The absence of 'Palean' boats so not provide sufficient evidence that there was no interaction between the people of Palea and of Lithos. The ancient boats might have withered over time, sunk or Paleans might have been using boats other than 'Palean' boats. Furthermore, there may have been more Lithos travelling to Palea than otherwise. Thus the travel might have been more frequent than previously thought.
The woven baskets with the Palean patterns may still be Palean and traded with people of other villages including Lithos. Again, the travel through boats can be possible due to previously explained reasons. Futhermore, there is a chance that via fishing, the two villages might have interacted more hence increasing the exchange of goods.
Another possible argument is that although the travel might be as rare as thought, the transfer of skills is still possible. The travelers might have learned the specific patterns and evolved the basket weaving further. The fact may be explained well if such an evolution is seen in the baskets and other woven items.
Since archaeology is a science on unearthing the past however several truths might still remain hidden. Hence we should remain open to the possibilities that certain evidences have loopholes which might be more visible if contradictory evidences appear. In this case, Palean baskets were not Palean because they were found near the village but because they were yet not found anywhere far away.
(The word count is 325 which seems very low from GRE perspective. Please suggest new points that may be included)
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.
Response:
The previous archaeological assumptions seem to present a constricted view. Only because the characteristic pattern has been found in the vicinity areas previously does not mean it is restricted to that area. Furthermore, in ancient times people used to trade their goods in exchange of food. Also, fishing was a rather important food source hence the interaction between these across-the-river villages must be frequent.
In order to analyse the argument, we first and foremost need to understand the frequency and nature of the interaction between the two communities. The absence of 'Palean' boats so not provide sufficient evidence that there was no interaction between the people of Palea and of Lithos. The ancient boats might have withered over time, sunk or Paleans might have been using boats other than 'Palean' boats. Furthermore, there may have been more Lithos travelling to Palea than otherwise. Thus the travel might have been more frequent than previously thought.
The woven baskets with the Palean patterns may still be Palean and traded with people of other villages including Lithos. Again, the travel through boats can be possible due to previously explained reasons. Futhermore, there is a chance that via fishing, the two villages might have interacted more hence increasing the exchange of goods.
Another possible argument is that although the travel might be as rare as thought, the transfer of skills is still possible. The travelers might have learned the specific patterns and evolved the basket weaving further. The fact may be explained well if such an evolution is seen in the baskets and other woven items.
Since archaeology is a science on unearthing the past however several truths might still remain hidden. Hence we should remain open to the possibilities that certain evidences have loopholes which might be more visible if contradictory evidences appear. In this case, Palean baskets were not Palean because they were found near the village but because they were yet not found anywhere far away.
(The word count is 325 which seems very low from GRE perspective. Please suggest new points that may be included)
