Woven 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.
The conclusion drawn by the author that Palean baskets wer not uniquely Palean is weak and lacks substantial proof. A few arguments have been put forward by the author but there are several unwarrented assumptions and ambiguities in his reasoning. Taken as a whole, these unstated assumptions render the argument suspect. Unless they are addressed, the entire argument falls apart.
The author has made the assumption that as the Brim river was very deep, boats were the only means of crossing the river. There could have very well been other modes of transport via land or the Palean’s could have had the capability of building rope and wooden bridges. The author fails to address the existance of such possibilities which weakens his assumption.
Even if boats were the only possible means of transport, the fact that archeologists have not uncovered evidence of boats until now, does not mean that the Paleans did not use boats. Often, new pieces of evidence are discovered in archeology that challenge previous beliefs. Unless there is sound proof that no other means of transport existed and that the Paleans definitely did not use boats, the author’s assumption is faulty.
Another assumption that the author fails to justify is that the Brim river has always been deep and broad. The topography and landscape of a region constantly undergoes change. The Brim river could have possible been narrow and shallow or even non-existant during the time of the Paleans. The author must validate his assumptions about the depth and width of the river by studying the geological history of the region before he can make any assumptions regarding the characteristics of the river.
The author also fails to consider the possiblilty of trade between villages in the surrounding areas. There are chances that Lithos and Palea must have been trading with one another and these unique baskets may have been exchanged while exchanging goods. The fact that a single basket has been discovered in Lithos does not say anything about the origins of the basket. The basket could have been made in Palea or Lithos. Even if many such baskets are uncovered in other neighbouring villages, there are chances that all of them originated in Palea. Further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding the origins of the unique design of the baskets.
In conclusion, the author’s statement contains several assumptions that seriously undermine it’s validity. Unless they are backed by substantial proof, the entire argument falls apart.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 290, 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.
...xistant during the time of the Paleans. The author must validate his assumptions ab...
^^^
Line 9, column 1, 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.
...ng the characteristics of the river. The author also fails to consider the possi...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, regarding, so, well, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2154.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21549636804 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70658427509 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486682808717 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 661.5 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.1693973303 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.9090909091 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7727272727 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.77272727273 5.70786347227 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216837753979 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0659067193768 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0778637804772 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105068557559 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0700551830055 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.