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
My Response:
The author of the article points out some facts and findings about the ancient village of Palea and
Draws conclusion based on those. Although at first skim of the writing it might seem logical, but on the contrary the author in fact makes some significant leaps while trying to prove that Palean Baskets were not uniquely Palean and as a result his arguments warrant serious evidence to support his claims.
The author starts by pointing out a recent discovery of the distinctly Palean basket in Lithos, a village across a deep and broad river from Palea, and builds his following argument on this one fact. But he fails to acknowledge the possibility that other civilization from a comparatively later era, who might have access to boat could have brought the baskets across the river. The writer doesn't present any specific evidence pertaining to this scenario and thus fails to discard this possibility, which significantly weakens his argument. If he cited some study of findings of a group of antiquities in Lithos with the same carbon dating as the basket then it would have strengthened his claims.
Moreover the author implies that as the river was deep and broad and as no Palean boats were ever found then they couldn't have crossed the river. This statement of the author lacks specific evidence on multiple fronts.
Firstly the author indicates that archaeologists recently discovered the basket and further highlights the depth and the breadth of the river that impeded the Paleans to cross it. But rivers are highly subjected to change and evolve over the course of prolonged time. It might be possible that during the ancient time when the Paleans were present the river was very shallow and narrow and over considerable amount of time the river has evolved to its current state. Without any evidence for or against this possibility no accurate judgment can be made.
Secondly even though the writer mentions that there were no boat ever found he fails to provide any evidence that supports his claims. Was the lack of unearthing any boat belonging to the Paleans a definitive proof of the inability of the Paleans to make any boats? May be with further fastidious searches boats belonging to the Paleans might be found. If decisive proof of the technological inability of the Paleans to make boat could be found then it could be said with certainty that they never made boats. Otherwise there will always be a lingering possibility that with further conduction of exhausting searches in the Palean vicinity proof of boats could be found.
Archaeological studies and theories always depend on the information at hand and are subject to change when more conclusive evidence shows up. But in the article the author fails to provide significant pieces of crucial information to back-up his claims. Thus in absence of these verifications it cannot be said with certainty that the woven baskets were uniquely Palean.
My Response:
The author of the article points out some facts and findings about the ancient village of Palea and
Draws conclusion based on those. Although at first skim of the writing it might seem logical, but on the contrary the author in fact makes some significant leaps while trying to prove that Palean Baskets were not uniquely Palean and as a result his arguments warrant serious evidence to support his claims.
The author starts by pointing out a recent discovery of the distinctly Palean basket in Lithos, a village across a deep and broad river from Palea, and builds his following argument on this one fact. But he fails to acknowledge the possibility that other civilization from a comparatively later era, who might have access to boat could have brought the baskets across the river. The writer doesn't present any specific evidence pertaining to this scenario and thus fails to discard this possibility, which significantly weakens his argument. If he cited some study of findings of a group of antiquities in Lithos with the same carbon dating as the basket then it would have strengthened his claims.
Moreover the author implies that as the river was deep and broad and as no Palean boats were ever found then they couldn't have crossed the river. This statement of the author lacks specific evidence on multiple fronts.
Firstly the author indicates that archaeologists recently discovered the basket and further highlights the depth and the breadth of the river that impeded the Paleans to cross it. But rivers are highly subjected to change and evolve over the course of prolonged time. It might be possible that during the ancient time when the Paleans were present the river was very shallow and narrow and over considerable amount of time the river has evolved to its current state. Without any evidence for or against this possibility no accurate judgment can be made.
Secondly even though the writer mentions that there were no boat ever found he fails to provide any evidence that supports his claims. Was the lack of unearthing any boat belonging to the Paleans a definitive proof of the inability of the Paleans to make any boats? May be with further fastidious searches boats belonging to the Paleans might be found. If decisive proof of the technological inability of the Paleans to make boat could be found then it could be said with certainty that they never made boats. Otherwise there will always be a lingering possibility that with further conduction of exhausting searches in the Palean vicinity proof of boats could be found.
Archaeological studies and theories always depend on the information at hand and are subject to change when more conclusive evidence shows up. But in the article the author fails to provide significant pieces of crucial information to back-up his claims. Thus in absence of these verifications it cannot be said with certainty that the woven baskets were uniquely Palean.
