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’s main conclusion is that Kalinese sculptures will decrease in value, because evidence show that they are made using molds of actual bodies instead of using sculpting techniques. However, this conclusion is based on not properly validated assumptions that if proven false the arguments used to support the conclusion will significantly weaken. Therefore, multiple questions need to be asked before the conclusion is accepted as true.
First and foremost, the author argues that sculptures in the size of a human body were created by the Kalinese artists using molds. The author makes this assertion based on the fact that molds of human parts were recently discovered which presumably account for the highly detailed features of the bodies of the sculptures. However, this discovery only gives evidence that molds were a part of the techniques used to create human-sized sculptures. There is no adequate evidence that artists were not using other techniques as well. Therefore, the question that the author needs to answer is whether other techniques could account for the creation of the sculptures.
The only evidence that the author presents to back his conclusion that human-sized sculptures were created using exclusively molds is that only a small number of tools were found. Although this explanation might seem logical, the question that arises is: if other tools were used would they be easily found? It is possible that natural phenomena, perhaps an earthquake, would serve to destroy most of the tools used by the Kalinese artists. Another explanation would be that these artists were using tools very different to those used nowadays and, therefore, archaeologists were not able to identify the tools used to make the sculptures. Until the author provides more information to back his/her argument, it remains unconvincing.
Finally, the author argues that because full-sized sculptures were made out of molds, their value will decrease. Even if we accept that molds were the only technique used to create those sculptures, no arguments are presented about why this would lead to a reduction in their value. It is plausible that the rarity of this technique historically will contribute to an increase in value. Additionally, perhaps potential buyers are purchasing these statues because of the realistic precision in the human features and not because of how refined the technique used to produce this detail was. The author needs to provide more arguments to justify his/her position.
In conclusion, the arguments used are rife with flaws and unanswered questions that need to be more carefully considered.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. we may argue: it is possible that these molds and statutes weren’t made at the same time or period.
argument 2 -- not exactly. we may argue: there are no sculpting tools found for miniature statues either.
argument 3 -- OK. also need to argue why the miniatures increase in value.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 418 350
No. of Characters: 2174 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.522 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.201 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.679 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.374 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.354 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 145, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...ed using exclusively molds is that only a small number of tools were found. Although this explana...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 351, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rity of this technique historically will contribute to an increase in value. Addi...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, therefore, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2234.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37019230769 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7874293514 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.461538461538 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 702.0 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.7005141977 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.578947368 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8947368421 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.36842105263 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213195403907 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.072469490235 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0648700215884 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118952093683 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585753216706 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.