▶ Your Answer :
While the recently discovered archeological finding regarding “Palean” baskets may invalidate its exclusive connection to Palea, the author’s argumentation is premature in its conclusion that the baskets are not uniquely Palean. The finding may surely indicate certain possibilities in which “Palean” baskets existed outside the traditionally known vicinity of the community; however, the argumentation builds upon a serious of questionable assumptions in all three steps of its deductive reasoning in terms of data collection, research methodology, and logical reasoning, which this essay will scrutinize in detail in regards to what evidences must be present to validate the case.
First and foremost, the argumentation begins with the fact that the “Palean” basket was found in Lithos across the river. The author presents his or her claim that the basket found in Lithos is believed to be “Palean” without specific evidences but the pattern as to what objective qualities make this Palean. The author must first provide scientifically justifiable evidences such as archeological dating and anthropological description of the basket in order to establish why and how that this belief is reasonably held. Without this, the author’s argument becomes void.
Secondly, the middle step of the author’s argumentation is set on the loose reasoning that since there was no boat found to have allowed Paleans to cross the Brim River that is very deep and broad, Paleans could not have reached Lithos. In order for this argument to hold true, the author must first present geological data that the Brim River indeed was deep and broad throughout the time periods that cover the archeological dating of the baskets that remain today. Without this establishment, it does not hold that the boat was even needed for Paleans to reach Lithos. Furthermore, even in the case that the river crossing required a boat, the absence of boat does not immediately invalidate the case in which Paleans indeed crossed the river. Prehistoric data in archeology is hard to find in its pure state precisely because of its prehistoric nature: The period leaves no written record, and it has been a while. It is especially difficult for such an object as a boat to remain in its pristine state because it is likely that presumably wooden materials either eroded or appropriated into other items.
Lastly, the last part of the author’s deductive reasoning claims that the basket is not exclusively Palean because of the two aforementioned establishments that the basket was found in Lithos, and Paleans could not have reached Lithos. In order to make the case, the author must present evidences that the basket arose out of contexts that are uniquely of Lithos and not related to Palea whatsoever. What if a person of Lithos transported the good? What if the basket-making knowledge spread to Lithos from Palea? Any archeological evidence in the region and period that Lithos existed must indicate that there was no exchange with Palea to validate the author’s claim. Even in the case in which such evidence is absent, however, it is similarly difficult to invalidate the case because it is an archeological investigation into prehistoric settlings. Therefore the author should be reminded that it is hard to assume any absence of activity solely based on the absence of evidence.
Surely the newly found “Palean” basket in Lithos indicates exciting possibilities in investigation into these prehistoric communities. Yet in all areas of archeological data collection and presentation, analysis of data, and logical reasoning, the author must further provide scientifically and historically justifiable evidences to make his or her case. Otherwise, as it is presented now, all three steps of the deductive argumentation are ripe with unwarranted assumptions that lead to an invalid conclusion based on loosely held reasoning. |