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.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The evidence suggests that the Palean and Lithos people have a connection to one another. The argument states that simply because no Palean boats have been discovered in the immediate area, that the baskets were not uniquely Palean. This argument is fallacious because numerous areas have yet to be searched and excavated; more specifically the Lithos land. We must understand the culture of both civilizations in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the origin of the baskets.
First, we must acknowledge that transportation abilities of the Lithos people as well as the Palean people. Any contact between the two villages could suggest the initiation of trade. This suggests that the Lithos people collected the baskets from the Palean people themselves and carried them back across the river in their own boats. If boats were found on the Lithos land it would greatly weaken the argument that the baskets were not uniquely Palean, because they may have been able to conduct trade.
Second, we must question the ancestry between the two villages. Any migration in and out of the villages or shared ancestry amongst them would spread knowledge and customs of the Paleans. This would extend the expertise of basket weaving to various communities and result in similar baskets being found in distant lands where the villages may have little or no connection to each other. If the two villages share common ancestry then it would support the idea that the baskets originated in the Palean village.
Third, boats may not have been the only way to cross The Brim River. The Palean and Lithos people would have most likely had a very broad knowledge of the landscape and know where the river became more shallow or less rapid, which would allow them to safely cross the river unscathed. If more research were to be conducted on the traveling patterns and knowledge of the surrounding area we could have a better idea of the origin of the basket and how they may have traveled from one community to another. If the Palean people were able to cross the river without boats it would weaken the above argument.
With strengthened, more intense research one could determine that the baskets did originate with the Palean people and that the Lithos people benefitted from their knowledge of basket weaving.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 388, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
... little or no connection to each other. If the two villages share common ancestry ...
^^
Line 7, column 506, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...traveled from one community to another. If the Palean people were able to cross th...
^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...om their knowledge of basket weaving.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, may, second, so, then, third, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1936.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00258397933 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44788914407 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447028423773 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 598.5 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4926420417 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.882352941 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7647058824 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.35294117647 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222049206952 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0820931710815 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0681449846402 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130655074326 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454568347945 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.