Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archaeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could be used only for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this discovery, collectors predict that the life-size sculptures will decrease in value while the miniatures increase in value.
The assumption of the author write in his memo that the life-size sculptures will has a less value than the miniatures sculptures, which is found in Kali Island sounds illogically convince with several reasons. However, the author ignored important information and some question needed to be answered in order to the final result is correct.
First, base on the fact archaeologists have discover mold of human head and hands in this region, the author infers that ancient Kalinese artist use of them to make Life-size clay statue. However, it is not necessarily the case. People, who live in different time, may create and use of this molds and the ancient artist did not use them. In addition, it is entirely possible this molds were carried to Kali Island from other regions. Without considering these possible scenarios, the author cannot justifiably conclude that ancient artists use molds for creating sculpture.
Second, the author claims that ancient artists had to create abstract miniature statues because they can not use molds for making them. Nevertheless, it is quite possible the miniature statues could have a special usage and ancient artists had to them abstract. In fact, these sculptures may use in traditional ceremonies as symbol of people’s gods, which were different shape from human. Since the argument relies on the limited information, the argument has many weaknesses.
In third place, the soundness of the conclusion the value of miniature sculptures is more than that of the full-size sculptures should be answered by the author. Many factors are effective for value of the work arts such as durability, usage, and age. From archaeological angle, the life-size statues are valuable than miniature because they have more age and can give beneficial information about ancient people. Since the author ignores these effective factors, I can not take the author’s final conclusion seriously.
In sum, the argument is rationally flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more information about the molds, which were discovered in Kali Island. In order to evaluate the authors’ conclusion, we need to know about all effective factors that makes a work art valuable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 83, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...memo that the life-size sculptures will has a less value than the miniatures sculpt...
^^^
Line 3, column 45, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'discovered'.
Suggestion: discovered
...t, base on the fact archaeologists have discover mold of human head and hands in this re...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 288, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...n different time, may create and use of this molds and the ancient artist did not us...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'in addition', 'in fact', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.269417475728 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.145631067961 0.15541462614 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0970873786408 0.0836205057962 116% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0388349514563 0.0520304965353 75% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0315533980583 0.0272364105082 116% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114077669903 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0266990291262 0.0416121511921 64% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81948644363 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0218446601942 0.026700313972 82% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.101941747573 0.113004496875 90% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0242718446602 0.0255425247493 95% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0169902912621 0.0127820249294 133% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2272.0 2731.13054187 83% => OK
No of words: 359.0 446.07635468 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.3286908078 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.395543175487 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.311977715877 0.287650121315 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.222841225627 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.155988857939 0.135150697306 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81948644363 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 207.018472906 90% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520891364903 0.469332199767 111% => OK
Word variations: 55.960889265 52.1807786196 107% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 19.9444444444 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8890476187 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.222222222 141.986410481 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9444444444 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.722222222222 0.724660767414 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 51.1422160322 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.89887640449 1.8405768891 103% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261132438731 0.441005458295 59% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.113034708008 0.135418324435 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0892909819484 0.0829849096947 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.546387184763 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.134648134762 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102726471585 0.193483328276 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0595616830574 0.0970749176394 61% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.3894701612 0.42659136922 91% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0456424513889 0.0774707102158 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174567993881 0.312017818177 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429648592493 0.0698173142475 62% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: This is not the final score. 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.