The author goes on stating that woven baskets were previously found only at places very nearby to the Palea village and they were believed to be made by the people there. But there are possibilities of trade or barter systems the prehistoric village dwellers could have involved themselves in, that we cannot rule out. The baskets were characterized by certain unique patterns that could have impregnated them with an aesthetic sense. Thus, the people of Palea might have involved in trading or bartering others commodities for these special woven baskets with various communities.
Archaeologists had found one such basket at Lithos village till date. This cannot rule out chances that they may not find similar items at other places, if explored. Moreover, finding only a solitary basket at Lithos does not bolster the author's claim. Had there been substantial data showing us that similar baskets were found at other places could we have strongly stated that they are not entirely Palean.
River Brim,as described by the author, was substantially deep and wide that hindered people from Palea to cross over to the other side,Lithos. The writer's next mistake is to assume that since no Palean boats were found, they could not have crossed the river whatsoever. No where is it stated that the people of Lithos too did not have means of transportation cross Brim.. People on both sides of the river might have traversed or exchanged goods if the Litho village had boats.
The author's claim that the distinctive baskets were not entirely Palean could have been strengthened if he had provided data as well as other findings paramount to this issue. He had overlooked certain facts such as the trade relations between the two villages and the possibility of existing transport facilities. Had he considered the findings of more archaeologists on this issue or the probability of finding the articles to places beyond Lithos and Palea, the argument would have been far more persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 301, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re been substantial data showing us that similar baskets were found at other plac...
^^
Line 5, column 11, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , as
...y are not entirely Palean. River Brim,as described by the author, was substantia...
^^^
Line 5, column 135, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , Lithos
...om Palea to cross over to the other side,Lithos. The writers next mistake is to assume ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 271, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: Now
... not have crossed the river whatsoever. No where is it stated that the people of L...
^^
Line 5, column 344, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ople of Lithos too did not have means of transportation cross Brim.. People on bo...
^^
Line 5, column 371, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...have means of transportation cross Brim.. People on both sides of the river might...
^^
Line 7, column 284, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the two villages and the possibility of existing transport facilities. Had he co...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, thus, well, in fact, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 16.3942115768 12% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1668.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 326.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11656441718 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63077184832 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539877300613 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.4542208348 57.8364921388 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 111.2 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7333333333 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.301428271808 0.218282227539 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104812469386 0.0743258471296 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0699210032575 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182569747774 0.128457276422 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0733707059822 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.