Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archaeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could be used only for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this discovery, collectors predict that the life-size sculptures will decrease in value while the miniatures increase in value.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
The prediction that the value of life-size sculptures will decrease while the value of miniatures will increase is not entirely logically cogent, because it is based on dubious inferences which requires more information and weighting. Some questions are required to be answered that can contribute to evaluate the argument.
Firstly, the discovery of head’s and hand’s molds can effectively endorse the conclusion that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies to create life-size sculptures? This conclusion was not efficiently made because it was not found any entire body’s mold or molds of other important parts of human body that can assure this conclusion.
Secondly, it is compelling to state that the ancient Kalinese artists did not use sculpting tools and techniques just based on the fact that just a few tools were found? This argument is not plausible, perhaps there are a lot of sculping tools hidden that the archaeologists still have not found or the tools may be made of some material that deteriorates so much along the centuries that they just can not be found.
Finally, the author does not even address other factors to explain why miniature sculptures are so different in style and abstract. It may be like this because life-size sculptures were used to scare enemies and evil spirits for example. This way they were able to protect their community. Or even they may be some kind of gift to their gods. On the other hand, the miniature sculptures may be used as toys by children, decoration tool or even symbols of people dead from the family. Furthermore, the sculptures may be distinct just because they were made by different artists, eras or materials.
Although the assumption that the life-sized sculptures were made using molds were reasonable or warrant this does not support the argument that the value of it will decrease. What aspect determines the value of an ancient sculpture? They will surely decrease just because were made using molds? A lot of knowledge was required by ancient artists to develop a technique to obtain and use molds to do sculptures. Regardless of the technique applied, ancient art always have great value to collectors.
To conclude, the author’s argument that the value of life-size sculptures will decrease while the value of miniatures will increase is not completely sound since the supporting sentences and the given assumptions are not strong and well related enough.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 401 350
No. of Characters: 2013 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.475 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.02 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.634 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.278 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.257 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.076 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, well, while, as to, for example, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2084.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1970074813 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78618687381 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476309226933 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 649.8 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.118908331 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.777777778 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2777777778 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.77777777778 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167534601608 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0587044600781 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0431546877661 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0898353907389 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0559968521179 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.