This argument contends that the recent discovery of a type of woven basket in Lithos – a village near Palea - dismisses the long-held notion that attributed this type of basket to the Palean. This argument might look sound at the first glance. However, looking closer to the argument, one can realize that the it is far from cogent as it is void of concrete evidence to substantiate its claims.
To begin with, the argument presumes that the basket found in Lithos belong to the same historical era as those found in Palea. This assumption may or may not be true. The basket may have been woven years later than the ones that were previously found. This can be tested through employing dating methods on the texture of the basket. Also, the basket might have been moved to the new place much later that the era that they were made. In order to prove his assumption, the author should provide some evidence concerning the results of studies on age of rocks and sediments surrounding the basket in the layer of Earth it was found. The underground layer in which the basket is found can determine the time when the basket was moved to the place. With the help of methods like this, the author can strengthen his first assumption.
Even if it is proved through compelling evidence that the basket found in Lithos belongs to the same era as the ones found in Palea, the argument can still be weakened. The author underlines the fact that no Palean boats are found until this day. Nonetheless, this does not eliminate the possibility of finding a Palean boat in future. Indeed, it is so difficult, if not impossible, to predict something about the future discoveries of archaeology. Besides, the Palean boats, if existed, might have decomposed until now since the simplest boats (as might well have been the case in the prehistory) are usually made up solely of wooden materials and are easily decomposed in decades, let alone in a period more than a millennium. Accordingly, the author needs to provide persuasive evidence to solidify his/her assumptions. For instance, he/she can use information about the history of humidity of the place to rule out the possibility that the boats have been corroded. Besides, there is another possibility that the baskets were transformed to Lithos by the boats that belonged to Lithos, not Palean boats. Therefore, a set of comprehensive archaeological projects should be carried out in Lithos to ensure that the boats do not exist – and never existed – there. Only with these set of evidence the author can provide a solid basis for his assumption that the basket was not carried to Lithos.
Moreover, the argument has made another unwarranted assumption that the fact that there is a broad river in the way between Lithos and Palea implies that the sea existed there in the prehistory. This is too long a timespan to draw such a conclusion from. The Earth has undergone various climatic changes since prehistory including intermittent ice ages and periods of aridity. Possibly, that precise era might have been a time with no river or only a shallow, small river between the two villages to act as an insurmountable barrier for commutation of people without a boat. This evidence can weaken the argument critically.
Yet there is on other unjustified assumption that needs further evidence. According to the argument, the researchers have found one basket, which is not a representative sample to consider that It appeared in the new place by human intention rather than by incident. In fact, a myriad of reasons might account for such an incident; the basket could have been moved to the new place by the help of natural forces such as turbulent winds or floods or by floating on the water. In order for this argument to get cogent, more discovery projects should be conducted, whereby more baskets can be found to strengthen this argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 307, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...r to the argument, one can realize that the it is far from cogent as it is void of con...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 326, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...he possibility of finding a Palean boat in future. Indeed, it is so difficult, if not imp...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, besides, but, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, still, then, therefore, well, for instance, in fact, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 28.8173652695 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 95.0 55.5748502994 171% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3230.0 2260.96107784 143% => OK
No of words: 663.0 441.139720559 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87179487179 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.07432619952 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.650424419 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 295.0 204.123752495 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444947209653 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1016.1 705.55239521 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.3467834042 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.666666667 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53333333333 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221214330937 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0597960752834 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0665490787109 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128818473009 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.042612222057 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.