The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that there has been no connection between Palea and Lithos village rendering the main conclusion that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean, invalid.
The argument fails to justification that in ancient time may be the crossed only by the time but as the time has changed. They can be any other means of transportation or bridge connecting the two cities .Furthermore, no boats are found from Palea presently but along the time some boats might have visited Lithos and returned. Moreover, basket might have been transported by the immediate vicinity villages across the Brim River to Lithos. Had the argument stated that the boats from Palea and immediate vicinity villages have never travelled to Lithos.
The argument also leaves many unanswered questions. Even if the ancient Palea could not have crossed the Brim River without a boat, the basket might itself have crossed the river with the flow and reached Lithos. Nonetheless, the village might have Rope Bridge to transport materialist item back and forth.
Finally the argument fails to justify whether the archaeologists have found the baskets in Lithos or people of Lithos making baskets of same particular distinctive pattern made in Palea.
As the argument kept several questions unanswered, it fails to make a convincing case that Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 204, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...tion or bridge connecting the two cities .Furthermore, no boats are found from Pal...
^^
Line 3, column 206, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Furthermore
...on or bridge connecting the two cities .Furthermore, no boats are found from Palea presentl...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...ort materialist item back and forth. Finally the argument fails to justify whether t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 28.8173652695 28% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 55.5748502994 40% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1240.0 2260.96107784 55% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 233.0 441.139720559 53% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32188841202 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90696013833 4.56307096286 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66840985102 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 204.123752495 63% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.55364806867 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 384.3 705.55239521 54% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4859215276 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.727272727 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1818181818 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.45454545455 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295544607358 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110381650478 0.0743258471296 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0786601938558 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159191067717 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470415058103 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.