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 claims here that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Stated in this way, the argument distorts the view of the situation by making some unstated assumptions and by providing weak evidences. To justify this argument, the author reasons that since the Paleans had no boats it was impossible for Lithos and Palean natives to come into contact with each other to trade goods and services as well as exchange cultures and traditions. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals little credible support for the author’s conclusion. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.

First of all, the argument readily assumes that the Lithos tribe also did not have boats to cross the Brim River to Palean territory to trade goods and services and exchange cultures and traditions. This is merely an assumption made without any evidence. If this assumption were found untrue that would explain the Palean basket found in Lithos. Since Lithos natives could have bought Palean baskets from Palea and returned them to Lithos. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that no Lithos boats just like Palean boats have been found.

Finally, the author cites that there is no route between Palea and Lithos except across the Brim River with a boat. However, careful scrutiny of the evidences reveals little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. To illustrate further, there could have existed several different routes except using a boat across the Birim River. What if there were a bridge across the Brim River? What if there was a route connecting Palea to Lithos which totally bypasses the river? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence. If the argument had provided evidence that there existed no bridge across the Brim River and that there was no alternative route linking Palea to Lithos without crossing the Brim River with a boat then it would have been a lot more cogent to the reader.

In conclusion, the author’s arguments is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by a detailed analysis of the way of life among the Palean and Lithos natives. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know about whether or not the Lithos natives had boats or not.