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.
Collectors cherish the life-size clay statues made on Kali island, but they are amazed that how Kalinese artists could create such precision realistic statues. Based on the discoveries on Kali by archaeologists, which are molds of human head and bodies, the author of the argument argues that these molds are used by ancient Kalinese artists for their sculpturing and they could have not used these molds for miniature statues. Therefore, collectors predict that the value of life-size sculptures will be heightened and the value of miniature statues will be declined. However, before the prediction can be properly evaluated, some questions must be answered.
First of all, are the molds of human heads and bodies, which are found on Kali, are used by ancient Kalinese artists for sculpturing the life-size statues? It’s possible that Kalinese used these molds for other purposes other than creating the life-size statues. Further, there is no guarantee that the molds belonged to Kalinese. Maybe, some traveler brought them to Kali and they did not bring them back with themselves. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the prediction drawn in the original argument will fall apart.
Another line of reasoning used in the original argument raises the question that are the molds found on Kali the main cause of the differences in style of the miniature statues and life-size sculptures? Perhaps, ancient Kalinese artists intentionally make different style of statues due to a curtain customer’s opinion. It’s plausible that in those days, in Kali, it was a popular trend among Kalinese artists that create miniature statues more abstract than the life-size human figure statues. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
Finally, the author naively concludes that the discoveries on Kali is the reason of finding few sculpting tools in Kali. What if other reason is responsible for the few Kalinese sculpting tools? Maybe, these tools were made of some material which cause the tools to be corrupted and decomposed during the time. Moreover, it’s likely that some natural phenomena such as flood, transported these tools to other region and archaeologists could not find them. If each of these assumptions proved to be solid, the argument will be invalid.
All in all, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the pointed questions and offer more evidence, perhaps in the form of a systematic research study, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the prediction stated by collectors that life-size human figure statues will increase in value and the miniature statutes degrades in value.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 14 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 441 350
No. of Characters: 2233 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.583 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.063 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.591 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.05 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.585 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.317 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...miniature statutes degrades in value.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, therefore, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2299.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 441.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21315192744 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66953622581 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458049886621 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 720.9 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.5030707919 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.95 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.05 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.55 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295858334424 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868850097064 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0947031420061 0.0701772020484 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167548311947 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0800885071569 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
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: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.