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.
The notion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean may seem at first glance to be a valid conclusion. At the same time, the argument may seem cogent. Nonetheless, the argument is filled up with assumptions and logical mistakes. Three reasons would suffice to support my opinion.
To begin with, the arguer assume that the Brim River too dangerous to cross without a boat. Though it is credible, the arguer fails to provide enough evidence to substantiate that assumption. It is hard to deny the possibility that the Brim River was less intensify in ancient time. There would be significant changes with rivers for the geographical factors. Hence, the argument has deficiencies unless the possible scenarios could be efficiently precluded.
At the same time, the arguer incorrectly concluded that Palean people never reached Lithos because the lack evidence of boats. However，it is equally possible that a more convenient way was used to connect two villages. People may build bridge or find other roads which were created by nature. Therefore, more persuasive evidence is demanded to robust the arguer's own perspective.
Finally, even if the assumptions above are true, the arguer still fails to provide any scientific evidence nor anecdotal evidence to prove the reliability of the Lithos’s isolation. It is fair to assume that Palean baskets were achieved by trading or gifted from other village which had a close relationship with Palean. That hypothesis has a considerable possibility to take place in reality.
To sum up, the argument is less persuasive than it seems, for the lack of evidence to assist arguer's assumptions. In order to rule out other possible explanations, it is necessary to glean more correspond information to make the argument more cogent.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-05-10 | Chloe2021 | 40 | view |
| 2020-01-21 | jenniferjack07 | 58 | view |
| 2019-09-03 | sujoy | 50 | view |
| 2019-09-02 | 1172910232 | 16 | view |
| 2019-08-04 | Muthu Kumar N P | 50 | view |
- Asked what the most eager objective is to modern people while working, the response of almost all must be a boilerplate answer: the success. Although some people claim that for success in a future job, the ability to study hard in school is really counts, 85
- "We recommend that Monarch Books open a cafe in its store.Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because it is known for its wide selection of books on all subjects. Clearly, openin 50
- Today, a prevalent statement we often see is that more money should be spent in supporting the art rather than cultivating athletics and holding sport events. This is because the arts could make people relax and enhance the ability of appreciating artwork 70
- Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In dev 16
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City s local newspaper In our region of Trillura the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend the city run public schools comes from taxes that each city government collect 58
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, nonetheless, so, still, therefore, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 58.6224719101 67% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1526.0 2235.4752809 68% => OK
No of words: 287.0 442.535393258 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31707317073 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.55969084622 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89138988859 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.574912891986 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 704.065955056 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.075904101 60.3974514979 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.7777777778 118.986275619 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9444444444 23.4991977007 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.55555555556 5.21951772744 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0486723936931 0.243740707755 20% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0141648922417 0.0831039109588 17% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0324040254088 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0289798675586 0.150359130593 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0274991321747 0.0667264976115 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.1392134831 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.8420337079 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 100.480337079 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.