TestMagic

THYAG · 2009 July 3rd, 06:52 PM

The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."

The analysis stated above has compelling reasons to be refuted.
Firstly, the presence of bones near the site at which the pots were found show no evidence of migration.The argument states no facts to prove that these very bones are those of the migrated pot makers.It could have as well been those of the denizens of that area.
Secondly nothing has been stated about the nature of that metal;whether the metal belongs to a category of normally occuring metals in the human bone or something categorically different.Also the analysis does not point out the study of bones of other inhabitants of that area whether they too contained such metals in their bones or not.
The fact that certain metals found in the bones at many locations could also be a result of a common culture followed in these areas wherein they ate something common giving rise to it.Common culture followed at the locations also could imply that they used similar pots from a common origin which suggests pots were spread by trade rather than migration.
Also the anaysis states that only a "few" of the sites showed this trend.No data is provided to quote the ratio of the number of sites where the metal is found to where it is not found.Only with this data can a definite realtionship be drawn.
Also the possibility that the metal was present in the clay used to make these pots cannot be ruled out;this entails that the metal could have entered the human body through food or water cooked or stored in these pots.
At the conclusion,the reasoning used to support that the pots were spread by migration could be made strong if the nature of the metal,the study of cultures followed and the statitsics of how many sites showed the presence of this metal were stated.

THYAG · 2009 July 3rd, 06:56 PM

sorry the cut and paste removed the gaps between paragraphs! please rate it!

Luma · 2009 July 3rd, 09:02 PM

Hi THYAG,

In general, your analysis is rich with good ideas derived from the argument, however, the sentences are not well-written, they should be more cohesive. This would affect your score negatively.

Here are some of my thoughts ...
First of all, hit [Enter] twice by the end of each paragraph so your essay becomes readable and use text editor to correct the spelling and grammar mistakes (there are many errors, there's no point in listing them, right?)

Here are my comments.
First paragraph:
You need an introduction paragraph that reinstates the argument and refutes the conclusion. The person who reads your essay would be irritated if you said "as mentioned above".

Second paragraph:
The argument states no facts to prove (The argument does not provide evidence ...)
It could have as well been those- This sounds colloquial it's like saying "could've been" but neatly ... one suggestion (Probably the discovered bones belonged to the denizens …)

Third paragraph:
Also the analysis does not point out ... till the end- needs re-formulation one suggestion (Moreover, the analysis does not point out whether the bones of the inhabitants in the area contained the similar metals or not)

Don't start a paragraph with the word "Also" there are many better linking words such as (Moreover, Therefore, One the other hand, etc.)

I think you got my point, now I'll jump to the last paragraph
... could be made strong if ... (is unconvincing where it stands. To strengthen it … ) reformulate the ideas in a more cohesive way.

Good Luck!

THYAG · 2009 July 4th, 12:24 PM

A big thanks!

2009 July 3rd, 06:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
THYAG sbbua Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Chennai,India Posts: 87	RATE ARGUMENt!first arguments!pls The following report appeared in an archaeology journal. "The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade." The analysis stated above has compelling reasons to be refuted. Firstly, the presence of bones near the site at which the pots were found show no evidence of migration.The argument states no facts to prove that these very bones are those of the migrated pot makers.It could have as well been those of the denizens of that area. Secondly nothing has been stated about the nature of that metal;whether the metal belongs to a category of normally occuring metals in the human bone or something categorically different.Also the analysis does not point out the study of bones of other inhabitants of that area whether they too contained such metals in their bones or not. The fact that certain metals found in the bones at many locations could also be a result of a common culture followed in these areas wherein they ate something common giving rise to it.Common culture followed at the locations also could imply that they used similar pots from a common origin which suggests pots were spread by trade rather than migration. Also the anaysis states that only a "few" of the sites showed this trend.No data is provided to quote the ratio of the number of sites where the metal is found to where it is not found.Only with this data can a definite realtionship be drawn. Also the possibility that the metal was present in the clay used to make these pots cannot be ruled out;this entails that the metal could have entered the human body through food or water cooked or stored in these pots. At the conclusion,the reasoning used to support that the pots were spread by migration could be made strong if the nature of the metal,the study of cultures followed and the statitsics of how many sites showed the presence of this metal were stated.

2009 July 4th, 12:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
THYAG sbbua Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Chennai,India Posts: 87	A big thanks! _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009 July 3rd, 06:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
THYAG sbbua Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Chennai,India Posts: 87	sorry the cut and paste removed the gaps between paragraphs! please rate it!

2009 July 3rd, 09:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
Luma that I would be Good ?? Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Middle East Posts: 1,057	Hi THYAG, In general, your analysis is rich with good ideas derived from the argument, however, the sentences are not well-written, they should be more cohesive. This would affect your score negatively. Here are some of my thoughts ... First of all, hit [Enter] twice by the end of each paragraph so your essay becomes readable and use text editor to correct the spelling and grammar mistakes (there are many errors, there's no point in listing them, right?) Here are my comments. First paragraph: You need an introduction paragraph that reinstates the argument and refutes the conclusion. The person who reads your essay would be irritated if you said "as mentioned above". Second paragraph: The argument states no facts to prove (The argument does not provide evidence ...) It could have as well been those- This sounds colloquial it's like saying "could've been" but neatly ... one suggestion (*Probably the discovered bones belonged to the denizens* …) Third paragraph: Also the analysis does not point out ... till the end- needs re-formulation one suggestion (*Moreover, the analysis does not point out whether the bones of the inhabitants in the area contained the similar metals or not)* Don't start a paragraph with the word "Also" there are many better linking words such as (Moreover, Therefore, One the other hand, etc.) I think you got my point, now I'll jump to the last paragraph ... could be made strong if ... (is unconvincing where it stands. To strengthen it … ) reformulate the ideas in a more cohesive way. Good Luck!

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests