oven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
In the claim that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean, there are needed more data to demonstrate the judgment. One of the data is the newest archaeological findings about the Woven baskets, which may be found in Lithos. Others are the geological change and the economical development about both Palea and Lithos.
Although the Woven baskets have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea, there are no evidences that this kind of baskets could be made only by the Palean people. Perhaps, people of other places like Lithos weaved the baskets and sold them to the Palean people, and it lacks of relevant records about the history of these baskets. Furthermore, the Palean craftsmanship of making the baskets might have been handed down by their ancestors, who lived in Lithos. Importantly, the economy in Lithos may be more prosperous and people there didn’t preserve such baskets at all.
Geological change may be the other reason. The Brim River between Palea and Lithos might not exist long years ago, so the people of both villages could take the baskets to trade freely. Supposing that there were the Brim River, it might be narrow and shallow, and people could come across easily. Owing to the short distance, the technology of making the baskets could be learned by both villagers, so the Woven baskets were not uniquely in Palean.
On the other hand, as the article states that the Brim River is very deep and broad, villagers can swim across the river, or pole the rafts across it, which was made by wood or bamboo, if they had no technology to build the boats or couldn’t buy the boats from other manufacturers. So the Woven baskets could be sold by both villagers. The most interesting do the aquatic animals, such as the ducks, become the communication tool to take the baskets to Lithos, for the baskets’ materials are light enough to be tied to the ducks. In addition, though the Palean boats haven’t been found, it doesn’t mean that the boats hadn’t been produced in this district. These boats might have been made from easy-rotten materials like reed, and so they had disappeared without any trace.
To sum up, the claim that the Palean baskets were not uniquely in Palean need to be strengthened by the assumptions that the Lithos people had the technology to produce this kind of baskets, or both villagers could come across the Brim River by other communication tools, not boats, to trade this kind of baskets for each other.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...thers are the geological change and the economical development about both Palea and Lithos...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 163, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...there are no evidences that this kind of baskets could be made only by the Palean...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... this kind of baskets for each other.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, if, may, so, then, in addition, kind of, such as, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2117.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92325581395 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59708723142 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444186046512 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 642.6 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.8333326643 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.529411765 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2941176471 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35294117647 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237785650862 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0866506637857 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111024288378 0.0701772020484 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143461843452 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103041875063 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.