The author of this argument claims that Palean baskets were not uniquely in Palea for the reasons that Palean baskets also found in Lithos as well as there was no Palean boats have been found. Although this argument seems feasible, it is not entirely logically convincing, since it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
At the first place, the absence of boats in the Palea vestige does not mean that Pelean did not have boats previously. Perhaps the boats, which are usually made by wood, have been disintegrated after being placed for a long time. Or perhaps the boats were transported to another place. The researchers need more evidence about the possible immigration of Palean people and probably existing rotten wood are the vestige of previous boats. In addition, Palean residents may have other tools to go through the Brim River and the evidence about the existence of these tools is not presented. Thus, the absence of boats needs to be proved with reasonable and complete evidence.
Secondly, the argument never addresses the existence of communication between Palea and Lithos. The argument supposes that the absence of boats represents the fact that there were no boats used in Palea, the author neglects a strong possibility that there were boats used in Lithos and residents of Lithos have the tools and the ability to pass through the Brim River. Without ruling out this possibility, the condition that Palean baskets were transported to Lithos may be true and the argument is wrong.
At the third place, If we make an assumption that there was no communication between Palea and Lithos, the distinctive pattern of Palean baskets cannot be explained by the conclusion of the argument. The event that two villages have independently made baskets with the absolutely same pattern has an infinite small possibility.
Thus the argument is not completely sound. However, the argument might have been strengthened by the archaeologists should firstly preclude the possible conditions that the baskets were transported by nature force. Maybe this basket floated in a flood and was transported by streams of the Brim River or was blown away by the wind. After all, one basket, whose number is too small, can be more easily explained by accidents rather than by human-made.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 374 350
No. of Characters: 1870 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.398 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.622 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.341 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...rn has an infinite small possibility. Thus the argument is not completely sound. H...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thus, well, after all, in addition, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1911.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10962566845 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.662920392 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 590.4 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.5608181946 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.411764706 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11764705882 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231505128781 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0748600061122 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0679281199249 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143460284057 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0361652915582 0.0628817314937 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => 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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.