▶ Your Answer :
Ancient artifacts can be evidence for archaeologists
to justify their arguments and findings; therefore, this author’s argument also
tries to support his/her claim about the particular pattern of woven baskets in
Palean. While the author’s evidence of Lithos sounds legitimate to support the
argument, more cogent evidence is desperately necessary to effectively persuade
the audience.
Since the writer strongly pointed out
the Brim River’s role of limiting Paleans’ moving between the two areas, history
of the river should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision about
whether or not the skills of the basket weaving can be transferred to Lithos.
If the river has existed before the baskets appeared, the argument can be
supported because Palean people could not cross the river with the skills at
all. However, if the river suddenly has existed by an unusual phenomenon (e.g.,
an earthquake) after the weaving skills appear, the argument can be weekend
since the skill could have been spread out by Palean travelers or merchants.
Thus, the historic relationship between the river and the basket skill should
be taken into account.
Additionally, more concrete
corroboration about no Pelean boats should be addressed. Since this claim is
the most significant claim in the argument, under the hypothesis that the river
has existed before the skill appeared, just one line of statement is insufficient.
For example, to more effectively support the claim, an interview with Palean
people, which might say that Paleans never have boats in their history, or any
archaeological records mentioning the same, could be more convincing evidence
for the no-boat claim.
Lastly, the author should investigate
other areas in the vicinity, farther than Lithos, in order to find out whether
or not the baskets are found in other areas. Lithos’ case could be a good
example to argue that the pattern was not unique to Palea; nonetheless, the
baskets could have been traded between the two areas. Therefore, if the
artifacts can be found any other remote areas, the author’s argument can be
more persuasive.
Finding out evidence that can support
one’s argument is essential to plausibly argue and clarify one’s findings.
However, one or two peripheral findings are not strong enough. Furthermore,
since the argument is associated with an archaeological issue, the author
should make concrete correlations between the data and claim by examining
historic data, and the evidence should be at least three to triangulate to more
conceivably support the author’s argument. |