Because Paleans could have crossed the Brim River only by boat to reach another ancient village, Lithos, one may claim that the presence of Palean baskets discovered in Lithos indicated that Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. However, there is much evidence needed to support or weaken this claim.

The first evidence is that there were other ways for Palean people to get to the Lithos, which weakens the claim above. Although there was Brim river seemed to block the communication between two ancient villages, there were still many alternative ways. For example, there was a bridge many miles away from the village of Palea along the river that was shallow and narrow, which even made swimming possible for a human to get to the other side of the river.

The second evidence is that boats could not be preserved for a long time, which weakens the argument. There could have been boats built but due to erosion or unexpected fire, they were destroyed, which made it hard for archaeologists to prove the existence of the boats.

The third piece of evidence is that trade was infrequent at that time, which strengthens the argument. If the trade then had not been not an available way, then there would be impossible for Lithos to obtain woven brackets via trade. Palean might sell woven brackets to others, and then these buyers sold the woven brackets to the people in Lithos. In this way, buyers become a carrier for the propagation of woven brackets.

Fixed version:

Education equality becomes dramatically important nowadays, aiming at diminishing the gaps among students from families with different classes. Therefore, there is a voice that all students should take the same national curriculum until they enter college. In this way, they hope, to diminish the differences caused by diverse education.

Admittedly, this action will, to some extent, decrease the variance among students, and equality of education is also critical. It means that even students from the poorest region would have the same courses as students from wealthy families, which indicates fewer class gaps.

However, its advantages are limited. Wealthy families can improve their children by paying for after-class activities. Also, teachers in big cities seem more experienced and skilful in teaching methods, which will exacerbate the gaps between the rich and the poor. Besides, the same curriculum would also eliminate the diversity of students’ talents. For instance, students, skilled at math but not good with musical instruments, will be more engaged and have more advances in math if music classes are removed from his class schedule. The time saved by abandoning music class will enable him to pursue more advances in math.

In conclusion, although education equality is critical, the approach that studys the same curriculum is not suitable, which may smother the diverse potentials of different students, and even backfire.