The argument claims that Palean baskets were not uniquely palean. To support this claim, the author cites that the palean basket was found in lithos, and there is no mode of transportation has been found for it to be transferred. On several ground, this evidence provides little credible support for the authors claim
To begin with, the author provides no information about the place of manufacturing of the basket. The author has stated that it was found in the village, but he didn’t provide any information about the manufacturing and the selling part. It can be said that the basket were just sold there and it was produced somewhere else; may be in the land of lithos.
Even assuming that the basket was found in lithos, doesn’t actually mean that the basket previously found in village of Palea is not unique. Because,the people themself might have brought the basket for marketing to Lithos. Or few travellers might have brought it to lithos from palea and left it. Or it may be because of some natural calamity the basket could have come all across the river.
Another problem with the argument is that the author states the river as deep and broad, the author assumes without any justification that at those time the river would have been short or narrow. Or it would not been in existence. Perhaps there was a shortage of water supply and there were no sign of river, and people easily moved around place and transported the basket.
The author claims relies on yet another unsubstantiated assumption: that the boat which would have been used by the people to cross the river was not found. However, this is unnecessary to assume because there might be any other reason for the boat to be not found. Even if the basket was transported using the boat, it might have broken down or might be set on fire by people itself. Or maybe there were some natural calamity for the unfound boat. Or sometimes the people could have broken down the boat and used that for building houses for shelter.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen its statement the author should include the manufacturing place as well as selling place of the basket. Author should also provide additional evidence about the river origin and the whereabouts of the river at those times. Finally, to better evaluate the argument I would need to know all the above mentioned knowledge along with any other natural calamity occurring at those time of period, if so, to what extent the calamity effected the place.
- 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 50
- 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 66
- 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 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 234, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun ground seems to be countable; consider using: 'several grounds'.
Suggestion: several grounds
...been found for it to be transferred. On several ground, this evidence provides little credible...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 154, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
... village of Palea is not unique. Because,the people themself might have brought the ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, however, if, may, so, then, well, in conclusion, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2120.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 436.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8623853211 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56953094068 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54109395504 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440366972477 0.468620217663 94% => OK
syllable_count: 662.4 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9616044258 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.952380952 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7619047619 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95238095238 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
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: 0.169591307022 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0639276308776 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047968690251 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0989481017506 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578937746359 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => 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: 10.91 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.