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.
In the argument, it is stated that Palean baskets which have been previously found in the prehistoric village of Palea are in fact not uniquely Palean due to them being found in Lithos, a village close to Palea. The author came to this conclusion based on the fact that for such “Palean” baskets to be found in Lithos, the ancient Paleans would have to take them across the river by boat, but, no Palean boats were found. However, before this conclusion can be properly evaluated, the assumptions must be assessed.
Firstly, evidence needs to justify that travelling by boat was the only means to cross the river into either village. It is possible that both the Palean and Lithos people were avid swimmers and found this to be their main method of travelling across the Brim River. Further, there is a possibility that the Brim River was not the only medium to travel across the villages. The author needs to provide evidence using a map or archeological history to indicate that this was their only means of travelling. Otherwise, the conclusion drawn from the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the people from Palea and Lithos may not be different people. The argument does not indicate that the people were from different lineages or races and so the conclusion is inadequate. It is possible that the “Palean” baskets are in fact Palean because the people from both villages are the same. The argument doesn’t produce any evidence to specify that the people are not the same, thereby producing the same distinctive pattern of baskets. Ideally, the author assumes that different lineages will think differently and have different relics. If it can be proven that the Palea and Lithos people were from a similar lineage which suggests a similar culture and thinking and therefore the same basket, the original argument does not hold water.
Lastly, even if the Palea and Lithos people were from different lineages, the evidence does not suggest that they didn’t interact with each other. Perhaps the Palea and Lithos people interacted with each other and shared their cultures. This means that each villager would have a similar style to that of the other people. If the argument can find supporting evidence of this, the argument will be weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now is significantly flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted conclusions. If the author can provide evidence on the three counter arguments and offer more information, then it will be possible to evaluate the practicality of this conclusion.
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants."Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had litt 46
- 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, archa 73
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In deve 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 429 350
No. of Characters: 2091 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.551 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.874 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.484 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.45 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.158 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2187.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 427.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12177985948 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7544309092 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43793911007 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 686.7 705.55239521 97% => 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
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.6779802709 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.35 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.35 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.200263653193 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.062275856365 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0711705753711 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103428989662 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0816510081261 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.