In the argument that the woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern are not uniquely Palean, the author concludes that these particular baskets have been found in other areas and cannot be strictly Palean. Due to unanswered questions, however, the argument is not cogently persuasive. More information is needed to evaluate the author’s conclusion.
While the specific baskets could not have been brought to Lithos by boat today because of the Brim River being deep and wide, the author fails to consider the geographical layout of the prehistoric village. The author assumes that the Brim River was located in the same place, and was just as large years ago. This is not necessarily true. Geography changes over time and the river that separates Palea from Lithos now, could have not even been there in the past. The river could have also been smaller and not so deep so boats could get across it. To strengthen this argument, additional information on the characteristic of the land from when the baskets were being made are needed.
Additionally, over the years it is possible that the baskets could have floated their way over the river. The author fails to consider the rivers current. Baskets could have been left in Palea, and over the years gotten caught in the city’s storms and been put into the river, where the current took them to another town.
How time frame in which archaeologists found the baskets in Lithos is a big question. The woven baskets could have been carried over the river years later after boats and newer transportation was created. The author assumes the baskets were found in Lithos at the same time they were being woven in Palea. This weakens the argument that the baskets are not unique.
Although the distinctive pattern of woven baskets could not only have been made in one location, the author’s argument is not persuasive. Without additional information on the years the baskets were in each city, the correlation is not concert enough to say the baskets are not uniquely Palean.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, so, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1721.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 343.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01749271137 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61409893597 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.454810495627 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.4328040586 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.6111111111 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0555555556 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.88888888889 5.70786347227 33% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.316305446008 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102167639476 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954777059482 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208492007945 0.128457276422 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0593963810896 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.