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 author proposes that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. In order to support this conclusion, the author has come up with certain evidences. However, on a deeper scrutiny none of the evidences lend credible support to the conclusion. Let us scrutinize them further.
Firstly, the author talks about archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos to support the conclusion. However, the argument depend on the assumption that this basket was made in the Lithos. Yet author provide no evidence to support this assumption. It is possible that as the Brim River is connecting both the villages, so the basket float with the river from Palea. Or it may be possible that the people of both the villages exchanged their goods and basket is one of those goods. Without eliminating this possibility, the author cannot rely on the assumption.
Secondly, the author talks about the brim river, which is very deep and broad, and so the ancient could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. However, the argument depends on the assumption that only Palean boats can cross the river. It is possible that he boats made by people of the Lithos are used to cross the sea. Yet the author provide no evidence to support this assumption. It may be possible that people of Lithos crossed it and took the basket to their side.
In conclusion, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive. To strengthen the topic, author must provide evidences to prove that their is no contact between the people of Palea and Lithos. Also, author must show that no boat is found, neither Palean boat nor Lithos boat.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-10-28 | Ly Phuong Thao | 60 | view |
| 2013-10-28 | Ly Phuong Thao | 40 | view |
| 2013-10-26 | hrithiksrf57 | 45 | view |
| 2013-09-25 | wasainika17 | 60 | view |
| 2013-09-10 | janet | 53 | view |
- Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars ideas reach only a narrow audience, until scholars can reach a wider audience,their ideas will have little use. 40
- The most effective way to understand contemporary culture is to analyse the trends of the youth. 70
- Its an TOFEL essay of type-2. Plzzz check it. 70
- It is an argument based task. plzzzz check it.... 60
- TOFEL writing task-1...plzz check it 55
Sentence: However, the argument depend on the assumption that this basket was made in the Lithos.
Description: The fragment argument depend on is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace depend with verb, past participle
Sentence: Yet author provide no evidence to support this assumption.
Description: The fragment author provide no is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace provide with verb, past tense
Sentence: It is possible that he boats made by people of the Lithos are used to cross the sea.
Description: A pronoun, personal, nominative, 3rd person singular is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to he and boats
Sentence: Yet the author provide no evidence to support this assumption.
Description: The fragment author provide no is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace provide with verb, past tense
Sentence: To strengthen the topic, author must provide evidences to prove that their is no contact between the people of Palea and Lithos.
Description: The tag a determiner, possessive is not usually followed by is
Suggestion: Refer to their and is
flaws:
No. of Words: 278 350
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 278 350
No. of Characters: 1320 1500
No. of Different Words: 123 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.083 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.748 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.429 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 95 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 62 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 39 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 23 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.238 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.513 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5