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.
In this given passage author discussed one antiquity that firstly suspected only to be used by people of Palea. Later in his argument, he implied his statement to be wrong by illustrating the discovery of archaeologists which was the discovery of “Palean” basket in Lithos. On the basis of this statement along with one illustrated example, he averred that the “Palean” basket was also familiar to the people of Lithos who also separately invented it by their own.
The main aim of this full argument is to prove that the nomenclature of “so-called Palean baskets” was not apt. It could be founded by some other village.
Firstly, in the argument author said it was believed that “Palean Basket” was only used by Palean . So, there was no solid ground to prove it. It was fully based on assumption. It is all obvious that anyone had brought the idea of this “Basket” to Palea from another village or Paleans had taken it to other villages.
Secondly, in this argument author only considered Lithos and Palea to have this basket ignoring the fact that there might have some other villages to use this basket. Before discovering Lithos there was one assumption that Palea was the only place to have this basket. There might be some other villages to use “Palean Basket” who portrayed the idea or use of this basket.
Thirdly, again another assumption made this argument weak. Here author assumed that the mode of transportation between Lithos and Palea was only by Brim River but has not supported it with feasible proof. The statement that no Palean boats were found is not enough strong to prove Paleans had no boats. Lithos might have boats to come to Palean. No information regarding that is shared.
The author here in this argument illustrated explanations that are not much worthy ad supportive. Some statements are made on the basis of assumptions that land this whole argument in a vague stage. Palean might be the one to invent the basket or might not be but with the support of points mentioned above it is not clear.
The author should have discussed the relation between Palea and other villages to prove that the idea of the basket was not taken from somewhere else. He should also have mentioned the communication and transportation gap between Palea and Lithos was mutual. He could have submitted some evidence to prove that the river was the only way of transportation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ean Basket' was only used by Palean . So, there was no solid ground to prove ...
^^
Line 4, column 167, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Before” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...some other villages to use this basket. Before discovering Lithos there was one assump...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248421052632 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.172631578947 0.15541462614 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0547368421053 0.0836205057962 65% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0568421052632 0.0520304965353 109% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0336842105263 0.0272364105082 124% => OK
Prepositions: 0.107368421053 0.125424944231 86% => OK
Participles: 0.0463157894737 0.0416121511921 111% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.92868449803 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0357894736842 0.026700313972 134% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.107368421053 0.113004496875 95% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0189473684211 0.0255425247493 74% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0147368421053 0.0127820249294 115% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2447.0 2731.13054187 90% => OK
No of words: 411.0 446.07635468 92% => OK
Chars per words: 5.95377128954 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.316301703163 0.378187486979 84% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.223844282238 0.287650121315 78% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.165450121655 0.208842608468 79% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.116788321168 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92868449803 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 207.018472906 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.413625304136 0.469332199767 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 43.9733839392 52.1807786196 84% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.8695652174 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.309855294 57.7814097925 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.391304348 141.986410481 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8695652174 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.434782608696 0.724660767414 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.14285714286 136% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 40.2539934412 51.9672348444 77% => OK
Elegance: 1.528 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350629642555 0.441005458295 80% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.149109557834 0.135418324435 110% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.112874539221 0.0829849096947 136% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.580267554051 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.16683923125 0.147661913831 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.139872749291 0.193483328276 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0763282760869 0.0970749176394 79% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.348208922673 0.42659136922 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0625849660877 0.0774707102158 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229287969653 0.312017818177 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521759586153 0.0698173142475 75% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.82512315271 207% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.