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.

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.



The author in the given prompt stated that unique pattern of woven baskets was made only by the Palean residents, and then concluded that, these baskets were not actually made by Palean inhabitants, based on the recent fact delineated by the archaeologists. However, the author does not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim, which will be declining argument strength. Thus, strong and justified evidence is needed to evaluate the statement depicted in the above task.
First of all, the woven baskets with specific design found in the ancient Palea does not mean that they were made by the local inhabitant, as the author failed to provide specific information about the origin of such pattern or the way of weaving this kind of design. To prove the author claim, at least evidence needed to showed who actually made these baskets or where these baskets were manufactured. For example, the original manufacturer of such kinds of baskets might be migrated to another place and leave these on that very specific area and later, Paleans might be moved here from another place. It is might be possible that these sorts of baskets were imported by them from their neighboring region. Such hole in the argument tends to move the overall tone in the downward.
Secondly, the neighboring village of the Palea, where the evidence was also found, was circumscribed by the deep and broad Brim river, is not supported by adequate logic and premises. It is possible that, there was no river on the prehistoric time, or if there was such river, perhaps it geographical condition might not be same like as now. Likewise, compare to the archaeologists discovery, the river might not be deeper and boarder on the thousands of years ago. Some unprecedented disaster later in the history might be influenced to the current state of the river. Therefore, these faulty evidences clearly demonstrated that there are some flaws in the argument and more specific evidence is required to advocate the author statement.
Moreover, in the later part of the argument, the author stated that, Lithos, the neighboring village of ancient Palea village, bounded by Brim River and rowing boat is the only mode of transport to cross the river. Likewise, the Palaean residents were not able to cross the river, as they have no kind of boat. From that, the author claimed, so called Palean baskets were not actually owned by them, however, such assumption does not hold water to support the author tone presented in the task. Because, it might be possible that, Paleans were able to cross the river in other way or they might have other types of transportation system. Hence, failing of demonstrating acceptable evidence weaken the statant regarding the origin of woven baskets.
Briefly, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that, the argument as it stands now, considerably flawed due to it reliance on several unwarranted evidence or assumption. If the author is able to provide more specific evidence, perhaps in the form of the systematic research, it will be possible to fully evaluate the argument, otherwise weaken the author stands.