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.
The author of this analytical piece concludes that the life-size sculptures will decrease in values while the miniatures increase in value. Several key factors which would help in better evaluating the argument are missing. However, on careful scrutiny, it can be evaluated that the evidence presented by the auhtor provides little credible support to the conclusion presented by the author. Hence, the contention of the auhtor is incomplete and unsubstantiate.
Firstly, it is assumed that as the molds are found on the archeological site and the sculpting tools are not found it is believed that the techiniques were not used and the molds were only used to make the sculptures. It might be possible that some other things could have been used but are washed away with the time and thus, are not found. It is all possible that the molds found their are due to some other reason. Also, it is possible that they might used molds for some sculptures and some other technique for some other one. Hence, there is need of proper evidence about what tools and techniques were used by them.
Secondly, it is stated in the contention that discovery of molds explain why life-size and miniature-size sculptures are different in size. This statement raises some querries like how they were different in styles? Were they different in the styles of making? Were they different in styles of tool used? Were the size and styles of representation interrelated? These are the questions that the author must answer for the better understanding of the argument and for the proper evaluation.
Thirdly, the conclusion given in the argument is not tenable. As, the passage does not provide any information that leads to the conclusion. It is not supported by the passage and is made out of the blue. There must be proper explanation given by the author to support his claim. Also, the statement given in the passage that the tools are found of the miniature-size sculpture. But, there is no evidence that suggests that the tools are only of miniature-size scluptures. They can also be of the life-size scluptures.
To sum up, the argument of the author is unpersuasive. To bolster it further, author must provide clear and concrete evidence about the sculptures that were made and the methods used for their making. The detailed analysis of these must be required in oreder to better assess the argument. Finally more knowledge about the topic must be required for the better evaluation of the contention.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 383, Rule ID: THEIR_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'there'?
Suggestion: there
...It is all possible that the molds found their are due to some other reason. Also, it ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 122, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: different
...-size and miniature-size sculptures are different in size. This statement raises some querries li...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 305, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... they different in styles of tool used? Were the size and styles of representation i...
^^^^
Line 4, column 62, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...n given in the argument is not tenable. As, the passage does not provide any infor...
^^
Line 5, column 290, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...n oreder to better assess the argument. Finally more knowledge about the topic must be ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly', 'thus', 'while', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.190371991247 0.25644967241 74% => OK
Verbs: 0.183807439825 0.15541462614 118% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0853391684902 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0437636761488 0.0520304965353 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0393873085339 0.0272364105082 145% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.131291028446 0.125424944231 105% => OK
Participles: 0.0678336980306 0.0416121511921 163% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76376998178 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0175054704595 0.026700313972 66% => OK
Particles: 0.00218818380744 0.001811407834 121% => OK
Determiners: 0.133479212254 0.113004496875 118% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0262582056893 0.0255425247493 103% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.019693654267 0.0127820249294 154% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2489.0 2731.13054187 91% => OK
No of words: 417.0 446.07635468 93% => OK
Chars per words: 5.96882494005 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5189133491 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.323741007194 0.378187486979 86% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.249400479616 0.287650121315 87% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.201438848921 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.131894484412 0.135150697306 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76376998178 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 207.018472906 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.41726618705 0.469332199767 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 44.5925275406 52.1807786196 85% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0384615385 23.2022227129 69% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.2274862355 57.7814097925 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.7307692308 141.986410481 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0384615385 23.2022227129 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 40.9785095001 51.9672348444 79% => OK
Elegance: 1.45901639344 1.8405768891 79% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185865933782 0.441005458295 42% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.212175102076 0.135418324435 157% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.146566579887 0.0829849096947 177% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.579458155017 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.112719845861 0.147661913831 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0881384828886 0.193483328276 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0356658790423 0.0970749176394 37% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.437927692349 0.42659136922 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0828512601587 0.0774707102158 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1394792861 0.312017818177 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0211983371883 0.0698173142475 30% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.82512315271 269% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More arguments wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.