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, archeologists 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 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 argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-supported. By providing the evidence, 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, the archeologists conclude that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean seems logical. However, the archeologists are failing to consider other alternative evidence that will weaken the conclusion.
First, the discovery of "Palean" basket in Lithos does not necessarily indicate that the basket would be originally made by Lithos's people. Perhaps the marriage between Palean and Lithos's were very common at that time, and many Pathean girls passed on the skills of making basket to the Lithos's people, or that some Lithos's merchants traveled to Palea and bought back the baskets. In short, without rulling out these possibilities, the argument cannot convince me that "Palean" baskets were not unique.
Secondly, even if the Brim River is deep and broad at that time, the argument assumes further that travelling across the river is the only way to reach Lithos. Yet the argument contains no evidence to support that either Palean or Lithos was an isolated island that surrounded by river. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that aside from travelling by boat, there should be other ways to reach Lithos. Moreover, even assuming that traveling by boat was the only way to reach Lithos, the conclusion rests on two additional assumptions: (1) no Palean boats have been found means no Lithos's boats will be found also, and (2) only Palean people had the possibilities to travel to the Lithos, but not did the Lithos's people have possibilities to travel to Palea.
Finally, the conclusion relies on a doubtful assumption that the woven baskets could only be passed from Palea to Lithos not the vice versa. Without identifying the age of the basket found in Lithos and the ones found in Palea, the archeologists should not conclude that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Perhaps, the baskets were not from Palean at all; it is possible that Lithos's people developed skills and passed on them to Palean people.
Before concluding that Palean baskets were not unique, the archeologists should firstly identify the true origin of the woven baskets. Without ruling out the possibility that Palean baskets actually came from Lithos, all the evidence collected would lend no support to the conclusion.
Yes, great argument! They could have been unique to that area and spread to other areas. You did such a good job with this that I think people are going to have a hard time giving you criticism and suggestions.
I know a way of improving papers like this, and it is pretty simple: use Google to find a list of logical fallacies. If you are taking a class the requires you to criticize something like this based on critical thinking, then you probably have already seen the list of logical fallacies. It is so cool! You can commit some of the logical fallacies to memory and you will think of them whenever you see a crappy argument.
The important thing here is that if you want to improve your paper you can add a few more strong points by looking at the list of logical fallacies now that you are very familiar with the thing you are writing about here, these baskets, and you'll recognize logical fallacies that apply here. By referring to the list, it is easy to make more good points.
I don't know what else to say; already did a great job!
