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.
The above stated arguments is about the distinctive pattern which was found previously in the vicinity of the village of Palea and it was believed to have been made only by the palean people. But, recent archaeologist claims that such a basket was also found in the Lithos, an ancient village across the brim river from Palea. Furthermore, the brim river was so deep and broad that ancient Paleans couldn't have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found there so authors conclude that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. This argument is not complete. There are few misconception made by the authors before making conclusion.
Firstly, the authors has not mention the complete information about the other possibilities for crossing the river. Only considering the absent of boat is not sufficient to conclude that people cannot cross the river. Though the river may be deep and broad people can easily cross it by swimming or they can use rope from one side to another so that they can exchange the baskets easily. If author had mention about other possible ways for crossing the river then this argument will be more conclusive.
Secondly, the authors has not mention about when the archaeologists had done this research. If the research had done recently, then the authors has not mention whether the bridge is present there or not. Furthermore, we cannot find the information about the possibility that are currently being used by the people of Lithos to cross the Brim River. If there is bridge or boat then the basket may have been transfer from the Palea village to Lithos so that the baskets were uniquely made only in the Palean village.
Hence, there are few gaps between the argument and the conclusion. Without knowing about the fact information we cannot conclude whether the baskets were made in Palea or Lithos. Authors should mention more information about the research so that the argument will be more genuine.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 399, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... so deep and broad that ancient Paleans couldnt have crossed it only by boat, and no Pa...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 590, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun misconception seems to be countable; consider using: 'few misconceptions'.
Suggestion: few misconceptions
...his argument is not complete. There are few misconception made by the authors before making concl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 30, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'mentioned'.
Suggestion: mentioned
...nclusion. Firstly, the authors has not mention the complete information about the othe...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 31, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'mentioned'.
Suggestion: mentioned
...clusive. Secondly, the authors has not mention about when the archaeologists had done ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 152, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'mentioned'.
Suggestion: mentioned
...done recently, then the authors has not mention whether the bridge is present there or ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 331.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92145015106 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47800447982 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.429003021148 0.468620217663 92% => 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: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => 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: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9268047069 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.8125 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6875 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.125 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => 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: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250617614542 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0851183873854 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133342098091 0.0701772020484 190% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159319632856 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.140004362741 0.0628817314937 223% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 98.500998004 58% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.