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.
In the given argument, the author provides a plausible prediction but, bases his or her assumptions on a lot of faulty reasoning. The author predicts that the value of life-size sculptures will decrease in contrast to the miniatures, which will increase in value. The prediction is based on the assumptions that the new discovery will affect the prices of the sculptures. Before we can accept this argument and the prediction, we need to answer three questions.
To begin with, can the prediction of the value of a sculpture based solely on how the sculpture was created? Can we say that the value of the life-size clay statues will decrease based solely on the reasoning that it uses molds of clay or that there is not much use sculpting tools for its creation? The prices of such arts are based on a number of factors including the market status, the interest of the people and the quality of the sculpture. For example, the people might be more interested in keeping highly precise representational sculpture instead of abstract ones which might increase the value of the sculpture. If the author had better explained the possible factors affecting the value of the sculpture, then the argument might have been more cogent.
Secondly, Is the lack of sculpting tools due to the use of molds of clay by the Kalinese artists for making the sculptures? Isn’t it possible that a lot of the tools were lost or degraded with time, which might have led to such a lack of tools. Similarly, isn’t it possible that the Kalinese did use a lot of tools for their life-sized sculptures since it is said that it was highly precise and realistic? Archaeologists finding a few ancient tools doesn’t necessarily mean that there weren’t much to begin with. If we can get the answer to this question, the prediction might not be as plausible.
In conclusion, the author presents a good argument but it lacks strong evidence in the assumptions. As of right now, the argument doesn’t hold much water. If the author extends his or her research on the topic and develops the argument further by researching deeply on his or her assumptions and presents their findings as a detailed research report, the argument might be more believable.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 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: 386 350
No. of Characters: 1796 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.432 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.653 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.66 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.127 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.557 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.165 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ptions on a lot of faulty reasoning. The author predicts that the value of life-s...
^^
Line 7, column 138, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s. As of right now, the argument doesn’t hold much water. If the author extends h...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, in contrast to, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1857.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87401574803 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77214811065 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.443569553806 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 557.1 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6222092698 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.235294118 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4117647059 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94117647059 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.122837198262 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.041264618909 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453507612278 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0726395898913 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0694586163818 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => 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: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => 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.