Topic:
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.

My Essay:
The above segment argues that the unique Palean woven baskets are not endemic to the region of Palea. This is based on the latest discovery, made by archaeologists, on these baskets in Lithos. The author of the segment then states that as Lithos is just across a huge river from the Palea village, traveling across is only possible by boat. Since no Palean boats have been found, the author, therefore, concludes that these baskets do not come from Palea alone only. This line of inference which the author makes has numerous loopholes which are based on a sole possibility. The author fails to consider other circumstances which could potentially prove his argument invalid.

The author infers that the baskets are not uniquely Palean because since they are also found in Lithos, then the baskets are not unique. The author fails to mention what constitute the “distinct patterns” of the basket. It could be certain shapes and colors used in designing such baskets. It could be possible that “such” Palean baskets could be unique only to Lithos in a nuanced manner. Both baskets could share the utilization of same shapes but different in colors. Archaeologists could qualify that as a determination to the type of basket designs. The author, or archaeologists, could have provided deeper details about these baskets to shed some light on their origins. These details could be how the baskets were woven independently in these areas and historical narratives which would explain the inspiration for these designs. Such details could possibly point out the differences in both the baskets from Palea and Lithos.

Also, the author cites that as the river is only accessible by boat and no Palean boats were found, it must then mean that these baskets could only come from both Palea and Lithos. The author assumes that Palean boats were the only transportation used to ferry baskets from the Palea village to Lithos. What the author fails to mention is that there are other ways which could facilitate the exchange of the baskets from Palea to Lithos. The other methods could include boats other than Palean ones. Furthermore, an absence of the discovery of any Palean boats does not warrant an actual absence in Palean boats. These boats could have perished long before and very well be used for the exportation of baskets once. If such pieces of evidence surface, it could invalidate the whole premise leading to the argument.

Presently, the Brim River may be deep and broad. However, it could have been shallower and narrowed which allowed crossing over without the use of boats. The author stated that the “Brim River is deep and broad”, describing the present conditions of the Brim River. Certain situations could explain why the Brim River is deeper and broader now such as global warming and building of a dam. These factors could heighten the water level through increased warming of glacial and downstream choking, making the Brim River deep and broad now. Information regarding the geological history of Brim River will either make or break this premise.

The new archaeological discovery challenging the “uniqueness” of the baskets should be encouraged as an effort towards finding the truth. Such findings can give credence to a particular group of people to appreciate and understand their culture. However, in this case, the premises presented to support this contentious idea ignores other considerations which may refute the argument. Therefore, the whole argument does not stand well based on the aforementioned flaws.