Argument 1
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 of the passage argues that the basket with distinctive pattern previously only found in close proximity to ancient village of Palea may not be unique to Palean people after all. The author claims that the basket was also found in Lithos an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The argument also mentions that its not possible for Palean people to cross the Brim River without boat and no boats have been found. However, the argument is flawed and fails to provide substantial evidence to warrant the claims.

First of all, the author falsely assumes the geographical setup of ancient and modern times as one and the same. It might be possible that Brim River that existed between Palea and Lithos was non-existent or perhaps was very shallow. The climate conditions following the ancient world change the topography of the area which resulted in the formation of the river. The argument fails to provide any logical evidence regarding the existence of the water body. Hence, if this is the case then author has wrongly concluded about the unique basket of the Palean people.

Furthermore, it might also happen that there exists a different path other than Brim River between Palea and Lithos making it easier for both the civilizations to trade goods easily. This path may be longer but it does not necessarily mean that the two civilizations didn’t have any trade. For example, if one country has put restriction on any trade routes through their land then we can’t just assume that two different countries who have shortest trade route through that country don’t trade. Therefore, taking this point into account the argument seems to be very faulty.

Moreover, the author assumes that both Palea and Lithos directly traded goods with each other but that might not necessarily be the case. The Palea may have traded with some other civilization with which the Lithos also traded which allowed the people in Lithos to buy Palean goods. Like is the case of modern world China manufactures iPhones but the Americans sell them.

In conclusion, the argument is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide scientific and logical evidence to the above-mentioned points then it might help make the argument stronger.





Argument 2
The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal.
"A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

The above argument compares a fact that seems to be related in rhesus monkeys and humans. It claims that firstborn of the Rhesus monkey mother shows high levels of hormone cortisol when it is stimulated such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey. It also further claims that first-born humans also produce a higher level of cortisol when their parents return after an absence. The mentioned argument seemed to quite ambiguous and it is filled with factual errors which are discussed in the alternative explanations which could plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

To begin with, the argument seems to compare two different animal species the Rhesus monkey and Humans which is totally wrong. It might happen that the hormone cortisol may be generated due to some different reason in humans than the monkey. You cannot compare two species having being separated in their evolution tree millions of years ago with same symptoms. The comparison seems to be factually incorrect and its quite evident that it’s trying arduously to justify the conclusion.

Furthermore, one could argue the term relatively high in the argument when comparing the cortisol hormone levels of firstborn and other. It might happen that relatively high might be a very slight difference and not too great of a difference for substantiating the conclusion. It may be well within the margin of error. The argument fails to state any kind of statistical evidence regarding the amount by which the levels were high. Consider for an example if the India and Australia are having a cricket match and India won by relatively high margin that doesn’t seem to justify that Australia is a bad team.

Moreover, the argument mentions that it has conducted the study on eighteen rhesus monkey which is very less for conclusively deriving such inference. Also, it fails to mention the number of humans studied for their experiments. It might happen that all the monkeys studied were from the same group and all produced higher level of cortisol without any kind of stimulation. This kind of study requires years of observation and statistics to prove the hypothesis but the argument fails to deliver such.
Hence, unequivocally we can say that by taking into account such crucial explanations the argument fails to justify the conclusion. It is impossible that such study with very little amount of population to study will lead to conclusions mentioned in the argument. To put it simply it fails to justify the conclusion on the basis of the provided evidence.