In the argument, the author bases the conclusion on false assumptions and less evidence, that Palean baskets were not unique to the village of Palea as they were also found in Lithos. The argument seems to be plausible but under deep reflection, it's full of errors and can be scrutinized objectively.
The author, initially, bases the conclusion on the foundings of archaeologists discoveries that no Palean boats were found is not conclusive and also only one reason to prove that Palean baskets are not unique cannot give such certainty. More evidence and details are needed to lead to the conclusion.
Additionally, it's possible that there are Palean boats in the region but archaeologist needs to excavate deep or need more time to find them. Yet boats are not found doesn't mean the opposite. Also, details about Lithos boats are also not provided, what if lithos had boats and they crossed the river to Palea then it's possible that they took baskets to lithos areas and basket remains unique to Palea village. There are more possibilities for the basket to be found in Lithos they need to be addressed and exploited enough to prove the author's claim but no such facts are mentioned.
Moreover, the author states that the Brim river is very deep and broad now, what was it before in Palean era is not given. Without knowing every aspect of the Brim river conditions during Palean time nothing can be concluded. It's possible when palean civilization established, the river wasn't much deep and broad then Palean didn't even need boats to take baskets to other places and hence, they are found in Lithos also. The author believes so hastily that the river hard to cross now than it would have been so before also, it's absurd, the whole argument is based on single reason and the author didn't support it with enough facts.
Lastly, the civilization gap of Palea's and Lithos is not stated. In what era didPaleans live and lithos live is not given, then the author cannot make the conclusion with certainty. As with enough time difference, it's possible that once a broad river is now completely dry or not so hard to cross. This objection completely renders this argument false.
With these fallacies and holes, the author didn't put a cogent argument to lead to a conclusion, it's possible that baskets were unique to Palens or they were not at all unique. But without many factual data to support either can be proved wrong. Hence, due to lack of details and broad assumptions authors claim is not valid.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 166, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...me to find them. Yet they are not found doesnt mean the opposite. Also, no details abo...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 288, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...ean civilization established, the river wasnt much deep and broad then palean didnt e...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 326, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...r wasnt much deep and broad then palean didnt even need boats to take baskets to othe...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 416, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...ces and hence, they are found in Lithos also. The author believes so hastily that th...
^^^^
Line 7, column 594, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nt is based on single reason and author didnt support it with enough facts. Lastly...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ce, its possible that once a broad river is now completely dry or not so hard to ...
^^
Line 11, column 39, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... With these fallacies and holes author didnt put a cogent argument to lead to a conc...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'hence', 'if', 'lastly', 'moreover', 'so', 'then']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.223655913978 0.25644967241 87% => OK
Verbs: 0.18064516129 0.15541462614 116% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0989247311828 0.0836205057962 118% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0989247311828 0.0520304965353 190% => Less adverbs wanted.
Pronouns: 0.0387096774194 0.0272364105082 142% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.0881720430108 0.125424944231 70% => OK
Participles: 0.0408602150538 0.0416121511921 98% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.46098185781 2.79052419416 88% => OK
Infinitives: 0.047311827957 0.026700313972 177% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0666666666667 0.113004496875 59% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0129032258065 0.0255425247493 51% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00860215053763 0.0127820249294 67% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2488.0 2731.13054187 91% => OK
No of words: 426.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.84037558685 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.328638497653 0.378187486979 87% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.192488262911 0.287650121315 67% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.12441314554 0.208842608468 60% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.093896713615 0.135150697306 69% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46098185781 2.79052419416 88% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 207.018472906 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446009389671 0.469332199767 95% => OK
Word variations: 48.3635579904 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.4210526316 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3518319172 57.7814097925 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.947368421 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4210526316 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.421052631579 0.724660767414 58% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 3.58251231527 195% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 41.6698789227 51.9672348444 80% => OK
Elegance: 1.10810810811 1.8405768891 60% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289813598077 0.441005458295 66% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0984986260252 0.135418324435 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.05553227289 0.0829849096947 67% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.573819663343 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.155418191528 0.147661913831 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118475923717 0.193483328276 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0681899157572 0.0970749176394 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.369154107169 0.42659136922 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.07156097592 0.0774707102158 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193219161465 0.312017818177 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0714604054082 0.0698173142475 102% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => 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.