It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument and prediction presented in the reading passage. While it may be true that the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures on Kali Island were actually created from the molds but not sculpting tools and techniques, some additional questions still need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable.
The most questionable point in the argument is whether the molds of human heads and hands discovered were used to create clay statues. If one desires to argue that the clay statues were made by the help of these molds, the time in which ancient people created the molds and the clay statues should be clarified. Moreover, the author needs to answer why we can not find other mode fragments of the human body if they were actually used to create life-size clay statues. If the molds were actually created for other purposes, it would definitely undermine the reliability of the argument in the reading passage and the prediction made is not likely to come true.
The second question that we would need to answer in order to evaluate the prediction is about the difference between the life-size clay statues and the miniatures. Even though the clay statues were actually created by the molds, we could not overlook their value. These two kinds of artworks have differences intrinsically. What are the techniques Kalinese artists applied to create the molds and transform them into the clay statues? On the other hand, in the article, the author did not provide information about the quality of the miniatures. Only if they are well preserved and still in good quality, one could expect that these miniatures will increase in value.
Last but not least, to decide whether the argument is reasonable, one needs to investigate the sculpting tools found on Kali Island to clarify whether they are used in creating the miniatures rather than the clay statues. Due to the size difference between these two kinds of artworks, the tools suited for them must be very different in size. If the sculpting tools are actually very large, it is unreasonable to conclude that they were not used in creating the big clay statues. Maybe some of the statues are actually sculpted by the artists, the possibility could not be ruled out rashly.
In conclusion, there are a lot of questions need to be answered in order to justify the credibility of the argument and whether the prediction is reasonable or not.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 430 350
No. of Characters: 2057 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.554 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.784 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.497 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.294 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.898 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.573 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.147 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 326, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: different
... the tools suited for them must be very different in size. If the sculpting tools are actually ve...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 488, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...in creating the big clay statues. Maybe some of the statues are actually sculpted by the ar...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, look, may, moreover, second, so, still, well, while, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2108.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9023255814 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57971870964 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.423255813953 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 657.0 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6719449336 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.0 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2941176471 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52941176471 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.209904300476 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0730693751172 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0587844829016 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116694884568 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0745594279441 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.