GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 24Get an Extra 30% Off Target Test Prep Plans
08:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Grab 30% off any Target Test Prep GRE plan during our Flash Sale and join Brian and many other students who have used Target Test Prep to score high on the GRE. Just enter the coupon code FLASH30 at checkout to save big.
Argument Analysis - Palean Baskets
[#permalink]
09 Aug 2018, 04:15
09 Aug 2018, 04:15
1
Bookmarks
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 arguments concludes that the presumably known Palean baskets are not uniquely Palean. The author makes the conclusion without bringing enough evidence to light. He misses out on important evidences which can clearify the doubts regarding the origin of the baskets in Palea.
The author in the beginning of the argument states that the baskets were found at a place in the vicinity of Palea and was therefore believed to be made by the Paleans. There is no firm evidence that points to the fact that the baskets were made by the Paleans or not. If the Paleans weaved those then where did they weave the baskets? Was there a workshop? How many craftsmen were required? What was their style of weaving? Answering such questions can shed more light on the possible origin of the baskets.
Moving forward the author next writes about the discovery of such a basket in Lithos across the Brim River. Again no further investigation was done into the occurrence of the basket in Lithos. The argument misses to identify the source of the basket and leaves a grey area, so a number of questions can be asked such as - Whether the basket was produced in Lithos itself? Where this a result of trading with Palea or somewhere else? Certainly these questions can nullify the argument if found to be against the argument.
Moreover it is a case of just one basket being found in Lithos. The author finds the evidence enough to suggest that even the people in Lithos used to produce or use such baskets. The basket could have been displaced there at some time later in the history and we are just finding it there. This is discovery needs to be investigated further before making any conclusions.
Lastly, the author specifies a geographical evidence of the Brim River being very deep and broad, and that it can be crossed only with the help of a boat. He further states that the no boats were found and draws another conclusion that the two cities across the river were not connected and hence there weren't any trade routes. This point to another hole in the argument, the author fails to mention about the efforts to find the missing boats. He also assumes that crossing the river can only be done using the boats. May be the Paleans had a different mode of transport between the two cities.
Also geographical evidence of the river being of same width and depth in the Palean times is missing. The river could have been of less depth or in those times there wouldn't have been a Brim river, and later in history because of some environmental impacts the Brim river is deep and broad.
Therefore, the argument stated is flawed and based on the assumptions discussed. To firmly know whether the origin of the basket is in Palea or no, the author will need to find out why was the occurrence of the basket in Lithos.
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 arguments concludes that the presumably known Palean baskets are not uniquely Palean. The author makes the conclusion without bringing enough evidence to light. He misses out on important evidences which can clearify the doubts regarding the origin of the baskets in Palea.
The author in the beginning of the argument states that the baskets were found at a place in the vicinity of Palea and was therefore believed to be made by the Paleans. There is no firm evidence that points to the fact that the baskets were made by the Paleans or not. If the Paleans weaved those then where did they weave the baskets? Was there a workshop? How many craftsmen were required? What was their style of weaving? Answering such questions can shed more light on the possible origin of the baskets.
Moving forward the author next writes about the discovery of such a basket in Lithos across the Brim River. Again no further investigation was done into the occurrence of the basket in Lithos. The argument misses to identify the source of the basket and leaves a grey area, so a number of questions can be asked such as - Whether the basket was produced in Lithos itself? Where this a result of trading with Palea or somewhere else? Certainly these questions can nullify the argument if found to be against the argument.
Moreover it is a case of just one basket being found in Lithos. The author finds the evidence enough to suggest that even the people in Lithos used to produce or use such baskets. The basket could have been displaced there at some time later in the history and we are just finding it there. This is discovery needs to be investigated further before making any conclusions.
Lastly, the author specifies a geographical evidence of the Brim River being very deep and broad, and that it can be crossed only with the help of a boat. He further states that the no boats were found and draws another conclusion that the two cities across the river were not connected and hence there weren't any trade routes. This point to another hole in the argument, the author fails to mention about the efforts to find the missing boats. He also assumes that crossing the river can only be done using the boats. May be the Paleans had a different mode of transport between the two cities.
Also geographical evidence of the river being of same width and depth in the Palean times is missing. The river could have been of less depth or in those times there wouldn't have been a Brim river, and later in history because of some environmental impacts the Brim river is deep and broad.
Therefore, the argument stated is flawed and based on the assumptions discussed. To firmly know whether the origin of the basket is in Palea or no, the author will need to find out why was the occurrence of the basket in Lithos.
Re: Argument Analysis - Palean Baskets
[#permalink]
14 Mar 2020, 12:05
14 Mar 2020, 12:05
The argument states that the failure to discover Palean boats, the supposed means of transport for the Palean people to Lithos, leads to the conclusion that the Palean baskets were not unique to Palean. The argument in its current form is not convincing. The support provided for the conclusion makes too many unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the "Palean" baskets originates from Palean. The argument fails to explore the history behind the basket. It fails to consider the possibility of the basket originating from another village. Secondly, being provided with the information that this was a prehistoric time, there is a strong possibility of some of the villagers being terrific swimmers. Our ancestors had a way healthier lifestyle than ours today and swimming accross a deep and broad river would have been an effortless task for them. But this possibility still makes the assumption of the Palean baskets being purely Palean not only a suspect, but tenuous at its best. So, if not rowing the boats, there must have been rowing of the arms and legs.
Thirdly, discovery of the basket in Lithos may have just been a coincidence. As mentioned above, the archeologists should analyse better and trace the basket back to its real roots. Or there may be a possibility of the Palean people mimicing the baskets, the roots of which actually lie in Lithos. As we unravel and scrutinize every assumption and find flaws in them, it is clear that the argument has failed to provide us with proper facts in order to completely trust it.
As a final analysis, the argument comes to an overly road conclusion. The dearth of concrete facts in the argument makes us go against it and believe that the concept of "Palean" baskets, most probabily, may not have been exclusive to the Palean villagers.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the "Palean" baskets originates from Palean. The argument fails to explore the history behind the basket. It fails to consider the possibility of the basket originating from another village. Secondly, being provided with the information that this was a prehistoric time, there is a strong possibility of some of the villagers being terrific swimmers. Our ancestors had a way healthier lifestyle than ours today and swimming accross a deep and broad river would have been an effortless task for them. But this possibility still makes the assumption of the Palean baskets being purely Palean not only a suspect, but tenuous at its best. So, if not rowing the boats, there must have been rowing of the arms and legs.
Thirdly, discovery of the basket in Lithos may have just been a coincidence. As mentioned above, the archeologists should analyse better and trace the basket back to its real roots. Or there may be a possibility of the Palean people mimicing the baskets, the roots of which actually lie in Lithos. As we unravel and scrutinize every assumption and find flaws in them, it is clear that the argument has failed to provide us with proper facts in order to completely trust it.
As a final analysis, the argument comes to an overly road conclusion. The dearth of concrete facts in the argument makes us go against it and believe that the concept of "Palean" baskets, most probabily, may not have been exclusive to the Palean villagers.
Re: Argument Analysis - Palean Baskets
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2020, 16:56
27 Jun 2020, 16:56
1
1
Bookmarks
In this short argument, the author asserts that a set of woven baskets known for their distinctive pattern can no longer be considered unique to the Palean people. The author arrives at this conclusion based on a recent archaeological discovery of a similar basket in a nearby village and the difficulty of crossing the obstructing Brim River between these two villages without a boat. However, before such a conclusion can be evaluated, it is necessary to address three key pieces of evidence.
First of all, the consideration of timing must be addressed. While the author maintains that the the Palean people could have only crossed the Brim River by boat, it is possible that the Brim River was not as "deep and broad" during the Palean people's era as it looks now. In fact, the Brim River could have been a result of a recent environmental events. If such was the case, it is possible that the Palean people simply engaged in mercenary practices with the Lithos people and may have used their baskets as a form of barter. From another view, there may have been a chance it was a gift to their neighboring villagers as a peace offering to avoid conflict. The possibilities are endless. If the Brim River and its relative depths were not as "deep and broad" as the author states during the era of the Palean and Lithos people, his or her argument would be significantly weakened. If, however, the flip-side were true and both peoples existed at the same time, the argument may be strengthened.
Secondly, the author maintains that there was no vestige of a Palean boat to be found. Can it be assumed that not finding evidence of a Palean boat corroborates the concept that the basket was not unique? Very unlikely. In fact, this lack of evidence is an incredibly fatuous assumption. Who is to say that the Paleans had to travel by boat? Perhaps they were able to swim or create rafts. Plus, even if they had built boats to cross the river, there is a high likelihood that those boat were destroyed by time or other natural causes. As such, the lack of physical evidence is not a strong case for the author's argument. If there is geological evidence to prove there was a natural event or that pillaging colonizers visited the Palean village, this argument revolving around lack of boats would also attenuate the author's theory.
Furthermore, the argument is weak in that it focuses on one singular discovery of a basket to defy theories about the basket's origins. The author here grounds his entire argument on the finding of one Palean basket in a neighboring village. Through the gathering of more qualitative information - perhaps through diary entries from the historical period - of what such baskets were used for, one would be able to assess the validity of his argument. For instance, if such qualitative information indicated that the basket-weave style was distinctively woven in order to withstand rain or carry heavy loaves, there is potential that both the Palean people and Lithos people simply created such a weave due to circumstance and were less likely to be influenced by one another. Such evidence would poke severe holes in the argument.
In conclusion, the argument that the baskets were not original to the Palean people is - as it stands now - flawed due to several holes in the points provided above. If the author is able to provide proof of the historical timeline of the both village people, the geological history of the Brim River, and other external pieces of information regarding the surrounding environment, it would lend some verisimilitude to his argument.
First of all, the consideration of timing must be addressed. While the author maintains that the the Palean people could have only crossed the Brim River by boat, it is possible that the Brim River was not as "deep and broad" during the Palean people's era as it looks now. In fact, the Brim River could have been a result of a recent environmental events. If such was the case, it is possible that the Palean people simply engaged in mercenary practices with the Lithos people and may have used their baskets as a form of barter. From another view, there may have been a chance it was a gift to their neighboring villagers as a peace offering to avoid conflict. The possibilities are endless. If the Brim River and its relative depths were not as "deep and broad" as the author states during the era of the Palean and Lithos people, his or her argument would be significantly weakened. If, however, the flip-side were true and both peoples existed at the same time, the argument may be strengthened.
Secondly, the author maintains that there was no vestige of a Palean boat to be found. Can it be assumed that not finding evidence of a Palean boat corroborates the concept that the basket was not unique? Very unlikely. In fact, this lack of evidence is an incredibly fatuous assumption. Who is to say that the Paleans had to travel by boat? Perhaps they were able to swim or create rafts. Plus, even if they had built boats to cross the river, there is a high likelihood that those boat were destroyed by time or other natural causes. As such, the lack of physical evidence is not a strong case for the author's argument. If there is geological evidence to prove there was a natural event or that pillaging colonizers visited the Palean village, this argument revolving around lack of boats would also attenuate the author's theory.
Furthermore, the argument is weak in that it focuses on one singular discovery of a basket to defy theories about the basket's origins. The author here grounds his entire argument on the finding of one Palean basket in a neighboring village. Through the gathering of more qualitative information - perhaps through diary entries from the historical period - of what such baskets were used for, one would be able to assess the validity of his argument. For instance, if such qualitative information indicated that the basket-weave style was distinctively woven in order to withstand rain or carry heavy loaves, there is potential that both the Palean people and Lithos people simply created such a weave due to circumstance and were less likely to be influenced by one another. Such evidence would poke severe holes in the argument.
In conclusion, the argument that the baskets were not original to the Palean people is - as it stands now - flawed due to several holes in the points provided above. If the author is able to provide proof of the historical timeline of the both village people, the geological history of the Brim River, and other external pieces of information regarding the surrounding environment, it would lend some verisimilitude to his argument.
