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, archa

The argument that previously identified “Palean” baskets was mis-nominated, supported by the finding of the same type of basket in a distant village, may seem logical at first glance. The author makes a valid argument, one that could be correct if its premises were true. However, his conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and lacks persuasiveness.

First and foremost, the discovery of the same distinctive type of basket in Lithos is not clearly described and lacks details. When was the basket supposed to be made? Was it made before or after those originally found baskets? Was it confirmed that it was originated from Lithos or it was brought to Lithos? Could it be estimated when the basket appeared in Lithos? Without these details, the author fails to correlate these two discoveries in a sequential way and thus makes no cogent claim.

Additionally, the author uses the evidence that the Brim River across these two places is too wide and deep to be crossed without boat. Nonetheless, he neglects to bring up evidence to prove that at the prehistoric time, the river was as deep and wide, or did the river even exist at that time. The situation of the river now cannot be counted on for the characteristics of the geology decades ago.

Furthermore, the lack of evidence for boats in Palean is not affirmative at all. For example, archeologists now might fail to find the evidence and there may be new findings in the future to prove the existence of boats. Or maybe because of the decomposition of wood, no ruins of prehistoric boat can be discovered at all. If the author can provide more specific evidences to show the correctness of his assumptions, the claim he made will be more likely to make sense.

In conclusion, the writer would not necessarily be wrong to assert that the formerly discovered baskets did not belong to Palean alone. After all, there is no opposite evidence so far to negate his assertion. But if he gives more details of the other archeological findings and correlates the events in a chronological sequence to convince us of the assumptions, the conclusion he put forward will be more logical and well-grounded.