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.


My essay:
The argument stated that the Woven basket, believed that it was only made by Palean people, were not uniquely made by Paleans due to the recent discovery of the Palean basket in Lithos, a nearby village of Palea. The author has come to this conclusion based on the evidence of unfound boats, assumed to be the only transportation mode between these two villages. However, the author supports his conclusion with three assumptions that, if not substantial, dramatically weakened the persuasiveness of the argument.

First of all, the writer presumes that Palea people were the one who made the Woven basket since it was founded only in the vicinity of Palea village. However, this may not be the case. Since it is fairly a very long period of time between today and ancient time, anything would happen. Perhaps, this is just a coincidence that the Woven basket just happened to be there, in Palea village. It is possible that the basket might be moved by other tribes who live there later after the Palea era or another village might send the basket as a gift to Paleans. It is also possible that the basket would be moved there by a strong local storm. If either of these scenarios is true, the author’s conclusion does not hold water.

Second of all, the argument claims that boat is the only mode of logistic between these two villages, reasoning out by a deep and broad characteristic of the river passed through these two lands, but this may not necessarily be true. Perhaps, the waterway is not the only way to transport between Palea and Lithos. There may be a land transport or even a bridge to cross the river. In addition, even if crossing the water is the only way to travel between the villages, at the point of that ancient time, people might not invent boats yet. They would use other simple kinds of carriage such as a raft. If either case is true, the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.

Finally, if it is true that Paleans made the Palean basket and boat was the only transportation between these two villages, the author assumes that there was no trade between Paleans and Lithos. It is possible that the founded basket in Lithos is a result of trading from Paleans, not Lithos made it themselves. Therefore, if it is true that the Palean basket founded in Lithos is because of trading, then the author’s assertion is invalid and the conclusion is weakened.

In conclusion, it is possible that the Woven basket was once claimed limited to Paleans is actually not limited to Paleans. However, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unproven assumptions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Thus, the author needs to provide the answer to the three unsettled questions above and offer more systematic evidence to support his claims.