Kalinese artists (GRE argument)

Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------

The author has referred to some important discoveries in this argument. But the inferences, which he/she has made, are seriously flawed. There might be a completely different angle to these discoveries that needs to be considered.

The realistic depiction of the human bodies by the Kalinese artists might have been the result of years of practice in this art. Molds of human heads and hands might have been used but there is no clear indication as to the extent of this usage. The author generalizes this technique of art for all the artists on the Kali Island. The realistic depiction of the human bodies by the Kalinese artists might have been the result of years of practice in the art of sculpting.

Also, the exact time-line of the discovered molds is not considered. If at all the molds were used by these artists, then sufficient evidence needs to be provided which confirms the same. It might as well turn out that the statues under consideration were from an entirely different period from than that of the molds.

The miniature statues might as well turn out to be the creation of an entirely different set of artists, possibly even from a different age, thus portraying a different style. Lack of miniature molds might not have anything to with these statues being abstract or different in style.

Even if molds were used for making the life size statues, there is no reason as to why one has to expect a decrease in their value. There might be many art-lovers who give more importance to the finish of the work rather than the technique used. They might consider these statues to be equal to or even more valuable than the miniature ones.

Therefore, it will be a huge blunder to readily accept the author's argument without considering the fallacies indicated. On part of the author, he/she has to corroborate his/her stand on the issue with accurate facts for this argument to be convincing.

Dear Rajveer,

Well done! You have got most of the point right, and you have been also able to put it in almost correct form. But, one problem that I find with your writing is that you have changed paragraph without any reason. If you are developing one thought; give it in one paragraph. Another problem is that your paragraphs are not related to each other. This shows that you have not done sufficient proofreading after completing the essay. I am giving few points below:-

The author has referred to some important discoveries in this (his or above mentioned) argument.
But the inferences, which he/she has made, are seriously flawed.
But, the inferences, which he has made, are seriously flawed.

Second paragraph has started without any connection with the first. You can try something like this-
The author assumption that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create their art, on the ground that archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on kali looks flawed mainly on these ground______. Now, mention your points.

Your third paragraph will go with second one, since it does not qualify as a separate idea, but you are trying to argue against the same contradiction, by putting another point.

You can also argue against this assumption of the author-
It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found.

Cheers!!
Rajesh

nice!! Good point. In critical thinking, they refer to both "depth" and "breadth" of thinking.

With breadth, you think widely and inclusively so that you do not miss possibilities.

At the end of the first paragraph, you can succinctly state your main point or list a few points that comprise your argument. For example:

The claim is questionable for two main reasons: The extent to which human bodies were used as models is not known, and the value of the miniatures may not be greater because people value different aspects of the art.

By listing your points at the end of the first paragraph, the essay will have better structure, and that is what Rajesh is talking about, too.

Anyway, this is well written, for sure.