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 aforementioned argument is well-presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance: since a “Palean” basket was discovered in Lithos, the argument that the basket is not uniquely to Palean seems persuasive. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, the lack of concrete evidence leads me to question the validity of the argument.

First of all, the author should provide more valid evidence whether the recent discovery of a Palean basket in Lithos can be reliable to versify the author’s conclusion. Since “a” Palean basket was founded in Lithos, the author rashly concludes that it is no longer a distinctive basket of Palean. However, the author should take account of the fact that simply discovering “a” basket is not enough to corroborate that the woven baskets was not distinctively made in Palean. It is possible that the basket was brought by a traveler from Lithos, and therefore, it was still made by Palean. In such a case, the author’s assertion that the basket is not distinctively Palean can be weakened.

In addition, the author should supplement the argument with more information whether the characteristic of river in the past and the feature of the present can be comparable. Since the Brim River is currently very deep and broad, the author hastily believes that the Paleans could not have crossed without using boats. However, it is likely that the condition of river has changed over the year. In other words, in the past, the river was relatively shallow and narrow, so people could easily cross it by foot. If this would be the case, people during the time did not need a boat and therefore, it does not be logical to argue that the boats were indispensible to cross the river.

Lastly, more concrete evidence is necessary on the soundness of the conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Since no boats have been founded, the author claims that the baskets were also made by the Lithos. However, in all likelihood, those boats used by Palean were destroyed due to adverse weather condition. In such a case, the author cannot be able to rule out the possibility that the woven basket founded in Lithos were brought by the Palean. Even if no adverse weather condition was prevalent in the past, the author should consider that the third party could possibly deliver the Palean basket to Lithos. Therefore, more valid information is required to attest the author’s conclusion.

The argument above is not cogent in many respects. To bolster the argument, the author should provide more solid evidence mentioned above.