The writer of the argument concludes that the so-called baskets were not uniquely Palean. However, this conclusion is not persuasive as it stands since it is based on a number of premises for the support of which there is not enough evidence.
To begin with, the editorial’s author, in order to draw such an unconvincing conclusion, must assume that the described baskets found only in the vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea were only manufactured by Palean people. Nevertheless, the author fails to offer any concrete evidence for the support of this crucial assumption. Perhaps, the baskets were made by other people living near that village and were sold to Palean people. We need to know whether any other nearby villages was trading with Palean people. For that matter, it is entirely possible that the baskets were supplied form other villages, in which event the author’s conclusion would lack any merit whatsoever.
Besides, the conclusion relies on another threshold assumption that things have remained unchanged with time. In fact, the writer of the argument draws a strong conclusion for a fact in the past based on a recent observation on the discovered basket. However, absent evidence that this is the case, it is equally possible that Palean people were the manufacturer of the baskets, and after a few years, people of Lithos learnt the technology and techniques to make the mentioned baskets from Palean people and started to produce them. Or maybe, people of both villages were making the baskets at the same time; yet the baskets were only found in the village of Palea due to some improbable concatenation of circumstances. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast doubt on the author’s conclusion.
Even assuming that there are evidences to support the previous flaws, the conclusion rests on another unsubstantiated assumption that the Palean people could not cross the Brim River since no Palean boats have been found. As far as I am concerned, one cannot conclude that Palean people could not cross the river based on the mere fact no one managed to find a Palean boat since then. Absent such evidence, it is entirely possible that the Palean people had boats; yet, no ships were survived to act as clue. Or maybe, no ships were found due to shortcomings and negligence of archeologists in their search. No one can refute the undeniable fact that a Palean ship, some day in the future, might be found, in which event the author’ conclusion would be unwarranted. In short, unless the author substantiates this critical assumption, I cannot accept the conclusion.
In conclusion, to persuade me that the so-called baskets were not uniquely Palean, the editorial’s writer must supply clear evidence that the baskets were not supplied from other villages nearby. The writer must also provide evidence that none of the above-mentioned scenarios weakening the conclusion were possible.
The
writer
of the argument concludes that the
so
-called
baskets
were not
uniquely
Palean
.
However
, this
conclusion
is not persuasive as it stands since it
is based
on a number of premises for the support of which there is not
enough
evidence.
To
begin
with, the editorial’s
author
, in order to draw such an unconvincing
conclusion
,
must
assume that the
described
baskets
found
only
in the vicinity of the prehistoric
village
of
Palea
were
only
manufactured by
Palean
people
.
Nevertheless
, the
author
fails to offer any concrete
evidence
for the support of this crucial
assumption
. Perhaps, the
baskets
were made
by
other
people
living near that
village
and
were sold
to
Palean
people
. We need to know whether any
other
nearby
villages
was trading with
Palean
people
. For that matter, it is
entirely
possible
that the
baskets
were supplied
form
other
villages
, in which
event
the
author’s
conclusion
would lack any merit whatsoever.
Besides
, the
conclusion
relies on another threshold
assumption
that things have remained unchanged with time. In
fact
, the
writer
of the argument draws a strong
conclusion
for a
fact
in the past based on a recent observation on the discovered
basket
.
However
, absent
evidence
that this is the case, it is
equally
possible
that
Palean
people
were the manufacturer of the
baskets
, and after a few years,
people
of
Lithos
learnt
the technology and techniques to
make
the mentioned
baskets
from
Palean
people
and
started
to produce them. Or maybe,
people
of both
villages
were making the
baskets
at the same time;
yet
the
baskets
were
only
found
in the
village
of
Palea
due to
some
improbable concatenation of circumstances. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast doubt on the
author’s
conclusion.
Even assuming that there are
evidences
to support the previous flaws, the
conclusion
rests on another unsubstantiated
assumption
that the
Palean
people
could not cross the Brim River since no
Palean
boats have been
found
. As far as I
am concerned
, one cannot conclude that
Palean
people
could not cross the river based on the mere
fact
no one managed to find a
Palean
boat since then. Absent such
evidence
, it is
entirely
possible
that the
Palean
people
had boats;
yet
, no ships
were survived
to act as clue. Or maybe, no ships were
found
due to shortcomings and negligence of archeologists in their search. No one can refute the undeniable
fact
that a
Palean
ship,
some
day in the future, might be
found
, in which
event
the
author’
conclusion
would
be unwarranted
. In short, unless the
author
substantiates this critical
assumption
, I cannot accept the conclusion.
In
conclusion
, to persuade me that the
so
-called
baskets
were not
uniquely
Palean
, the editorial’s
writer
must
supply
clear
evidence
that the
baskets
were not supplied from
other
villages
nearby. The
writer
must
also
provide
evidence
that none of the above-mentioned scenarios weakening the
conclusion
were
possible
.