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 justify the nomenclature of “so-called Palean baskets”.
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 properly. It was fully based on ambiguous assumptions. 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 nearby villages. The author should bring some legitimate explanation and proof to the limelight to espouse his baseless assumption.
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 which is not clarified by the author. Archaeologists may make this inevitable and certain discovery later. No information and evidence regarding that are shared.
The author here in this argument illustrated explanations that are not much worthy and supportive. Some statements are made on the basis of abrupt and baseless 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 can not be justified.
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 to negate the argument that there might have another way or ways of proper transportation and communication.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 485, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...lso separately invented it by their own.The main aim of this full argument is to ju...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.256704980843 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.164750957854 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0555555555556 0.0836205057962 66% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0555555555556 0.0520304965353 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0306513409962 0.0272364105082 113% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0996168582375 0.125424944231 79% => OK
Participles: 0.0421455938697 0.0416121511921 101% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.00618703218 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0383141762452 0.026700313972 143% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.107279693487 0.113004496875 95% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0229885057471 0.0255425247493 90% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0153256704981 0.0127820249294 120% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2787.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 456.0 446.07635468 102% => OK
Chars per words: 6.11184210526 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62105577807 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.344298245614 0.378187486979 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.25 0.287650121315 87% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.184210526316 0.208842608468 88% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.133771929825 0.135150697306 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00618703218 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 207.018472906 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.414473684211 0.469332199767 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 45.5531216681 52.1807786196 87% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.8260869565 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0498737136 57.7814097925 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.173913043 141.986410481 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8260869565 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.521739130435 0.724660767414 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 44.8260869565 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 1.58778625954 1.8405768891 86% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.366991739021 0.441005458295 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.163059450639 0.135418324435 120% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.122661053821 0.0829849096947 148% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.553649964047 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.178896372939 0.147661913831 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143109696566 0.193483328276 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.080157825854 0.0970749176394 83% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.377521958658 0.42659136922 88% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0702997034196 0.0774707102158 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.247175348159 0.312017818177 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0522516010133 0.0698173142475 75% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => 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.