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.
The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that Lithos can only be reached from Palea through crossing the Brim River by boat, rendering its conclusion invalid.
First, the argument fails to address whether or not Palea and Lithos were separated by the Brim River during prehistoric times. The landscape on the Earth is constantly changing, and it is quite fathomable that many years ago, the Brim River did not exist. In this scenario, the Paleans could have walked on dry land over to the city now known as Lithos. Moreover, the argument states that this river is deep, which again may not have been true during prehistoric times. Had the argument provided evidence that the Brim River existed during those times, it still would have to prove that the river was similar in depth and width back then as it is today.
The argument also fails to provide any evidence that the only route to reach Lithos from Palea was to cross the Brim River. For one, the Paleans could have traveled to Lithos through a longer, less direct path. If the Paleans were able to find an alternate route that did not require boats, they may have been able to reach Lithos by traversing wilderness or mountains. The argument would have been strengthened had it provided evidence that there are no other viable routes between Palea and Lithos. Even then, the argument would have to prove that the routes could not be traversed in prehistoric times, not just in the present time frame.
Finally, the argument assumes that because no Palean boats have ever been found that the Paleans could not build boats to cross rivers. It is possible that the Paleans constructed boats out of perishable materials, such as twigs and branches, that did not stand the test of time. If the purpose of their boat was simply to cross the Brim River and nothing more, they may not have needed to keep the boat after the journey. In fact, maybe the valuable resources that made up the boat were then repurposed into building houses or fires. Had the argument provided evidence that the Paleans had no way of crossing rivers, such as written documents from the Paleans stating this, it would strengthen the argument.
Because the argument relies on several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that the Paleans did not inhabit Lithos and weave baskets there. The argument would have been more persuasive had it included stronger evidence of the infeasibility of crossing this river during prehistoric times.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 38, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... First, the argument fails to address whether or not Palea and Lithos were separated by the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, may, moreover, so, still, then, as to, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2138.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91494252874 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37711598516 2.78398813304 85% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459770114943 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 649.8 705.55239521 92% => 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: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.63337415 57.8364921388 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 112.526315789 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8947368421 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.26315789474 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185910208667 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0694189409358 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434853039706 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114155823192 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0411685511431 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => 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: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => 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.