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.
<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">It is stated that the Palean basket was not uniquely Palean because of absence of Palean boats. The author has come to this conclusion based on the assumption of missing Palean boat, and the woven basket found in tribe. However, before this recommendation can be fully evaluated, below three points must be answered.
First of all, the archaeologists discovered palean boat is disappeared. According to archaeologists, ancient Paleans used to travel by Palean boats. The Lithos was an ancient village. This was situated across the Brim River from Palea. The archaeologists assume that, the Brim River was very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Perhaps,- the Paleans boat may has been rotten after a decade. The author ignores the possibility of some natural calamity might be responsible. Further, there is a possibility thatPaleans could have used an alternate route. All the above assumptions do not bolster the argument that Paleans were used only Brim river for travel. If either of these scenarios have merit, then the conclusion drawn is significantly weakened.
Secondly, how did Palean basket reach to other location? Perhaps, the village Paleans was involved in trading of Woven baskets. The archaeologists discovered the similiar Palean Woven basket in neighbouring villages. It is a less likely to believe that the village Lithos and the Palea both had the same skills in making Woven baskets. If the above assumptions are true, then the author'sconclusion does not hold water.
Thirdly, the author fails to consider that the ancient Paleans could have migrated to other location in search of job or any other purpose. These people could have been carried the woven basket which is significantly known for Palean's authentic work. The tourist may has transported to other location. It is possible that, the village Palea was never commute to neighbouring villages. The neighbouring villages used to visit the Palea village for trade purpose. Also, it is also possible that the Brim river was not deep and narrow instead it was wide. It is now deep and narrow. No information is given related to this. The author's argument relies on assumptions for which no evidence has been given.
The argument as it holds now, is considerable flawed due to its reliance on several unwanted assumptions. If the author is able to offer more evidence, then it will possible to fully evaluate the visibility of the proposed recommendation that Palean basket were not unquiely Palean. Without additional information, there isn't much reason to believe on conclusion that the Palean basket were not uniquely palean.</span>
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The archaeologists discovered the similiar Palean Woven basket in neighbouring villages.
Error: neighbouring Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: similiar Suggestion: similar
Sentence: If the above assumptions are true, then the author'sconclusion does not hold water.
Error: sconclusion Suggestion: conclusion
Sentence: If the author is able to offer more evidence, then it will possible to fully evaluate the visibility of the proposed recommendation that Palean basket were not unquiely Palean.
Error: unquiely Suggestion: uniquely
------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 445 350
No. of Characters: 2225 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.593 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.675 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 14.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.404 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.367 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.267 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.438 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 352, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'commuted'.
Suggestion: commuted
...sible that, the village Palea was never commute to neighbouring villages. The neighbour...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 532, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t the Brim river was not deep and narrow instead it was wide. It is now deep and ...
^^
Line 8, column 627, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...formation is given related to this. The authors argument relies on assumptions for whic...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 322, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
.... Without additional information, there isnt much reason to believe on conclusion th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2316.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27562642369 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9869397797 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487471526196 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 713.7 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.4707493144 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.2 119.503703932 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.6333333333 23.324526521 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.9 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 17.0 4.67664670659 364% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255954342654 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0646086019764 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552078757149 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145200720895 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0299068276522 0.0628817314937 48% => 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: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 48.3550499002 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 12.197005988 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.75 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.