Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologists 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 only be used for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies to create status. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out the discovery of the molds of human heads and hands on Kali，which may seem reasonable at first glance. And then the arguer claims that the life-size sculptures will decrease in value and the miniatures will increase in value. With a series of unwarranted assumptions and holes, however, this argument fails to be wholly persuasive as it stands.
A paramount problem involved in this recommendation is that the arguer simply assumes that the discovered molds of human heads and hands were used to create the statues. However, it is much likely that the molds were used for other purposes. Even if the molds were used for sculpting, we cannot hastily conclude that Kalinese artists also use molds to create all life-size statues. There could be a mix of techniques such as to use molds for head and extremities, and to use sculpting tools for the shape and skin. The author should provide more reliable evidence and have to rule out these or other possible alternative explanations.
Additionally, it is not safe to unfairly assume that the Kalinese artists never used sculpting tools and techniques to create the statues. The lack of discoveries of sculpting tools could be explained by various reasons. For example, the Kalinese might use woods as sculpting tools, which discompose easily and therefore remain nowhere to be found nowadays. Or perhaps there were natural disasters such as floods or tsunami and thus all the tools were destroyed. Without more data and evidence to rule out these alternative explanations, there is little chance that the author’s assumption can be bolstered.
Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are reasonable, the author unjustly concludes that the life-size sculptures will decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value. In fact, there is no rational between the statement and the conclusion. It could turn out to be the case that the life-size sculptures were much valued due to their paucity. Therefore, the arguer’s conclusion is unfounded.
To sum up, there are, as I have presented, many obvious flaws that need to be addressed before the proposal can be seriously scrutinized. I will need more evidence on the purpose of the molds, the nature of sculpting tools, the climate histories of the island, and the value of the two sculptures to confidently agree with the author’s prediction. Otherwise, any impetuous implementation of the recommendation would be unlikely to have the desired consequences.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 428 350
No. of Characters: 2153 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.548 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.03 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.743 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.381 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.47 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, as to, for example, in fact, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2229.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 427.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22014051522 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93823381883 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473067915691 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 700.2 705.55239521 99% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.4164526606 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.142857143 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3333333333 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42857142857 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170994106089 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0509586837992 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039563909251 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0943237393321 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0394016858063 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.