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, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Conclusion of this argument “The so called Palean baskets which were supposed to be originated in Palea are not uniquely Palean” rests weakly on following three assumptions: First, Palean didn’t knew boat making. Second, Woven baskets were found in only two places. And Third, Palean and lithos did not know about each other.
The argument says that no palean boats were found and thus palean couldn’t have crossed river and gone to lithos. What is palean knew about boat making and their boats were all destroyed or if archeaologists found palean boats then it can be assumed that woven baskets were taken to lithos by palean. Moreover the survey carried out by archealogists did not say anything about boats of Lithos. So what if Lithos knew about boat making and they crossed the river, came to palean and took the art of woven baskets. If this is the case then we can say that woven baskets were uniquely palean.
Next the argument assumes that the woven baskets were found only in palean and lithos. So what if the basket accidently like due to excessive flood or some other reason reaches the other bank of Brim river where Lithos is situated? Then it can be asserted that the basket was specifically Palean.
The argument also assumes that Palean and Lithos did not know each other. Suppose palean and lithos were connected through a trade market, then it is possible that lithos took the basket from palean.
Thus it can be said that the argument relies on these arguments and if any of these arguments are proved otherwise then that will weaken the conclusion. In order to strenghten the point the author need to address more about the river conectivity of that time and it need to consider the possibilities of trade realtions between the two villages and also it need to include the study of other artifacts to understand the design patterns to find similarities and then it can be assumed that the baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 306, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...baskets were taken to lithos by palean. Moreover the survey carried out by archealogists...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 518, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...lean and took the art of woven baskets. If this is the case then we can say that w...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...t lithos took the basket from palean. Thus it can be said that the argument relies...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, moreover, second, so, then, third, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1631.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 337.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.83976261128 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43892365215 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.442136498516 0.468620217663 94% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 705.55239521 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.6685950183 57.8364921388 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.733333333 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4666666667 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.73333333333 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186839720468 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0876734167374 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0738446141947 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11905041302 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0441788585079 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.