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.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The provided passage suggests that baskets with a specific pattern are not particular to a certain prehistoric village called Pelea due to the discovery of a similar basket in Lithos, a village across the Brim River. Yet, sufficient evidence is not included to support this claim. To better address the claim, one would need to know more such as whether the Brim's historical geography, whether the villages were in touch with outside cultures, and the timeline of these villages existences and a scientific time-dating of the found baskets themselves.
Firstly, the claim lacks basic chronological information. To clarify the statements, the inclusion of a timeline of each group's history and the baskets' time-dating are necessary. Thus, there would be a clear determination of the baskets' and villages' age. From there, a comparison would reveal whether baskets were made at the same time, or if the villages coexisted, for instance. These are fundamental house-cleaning checks for any further analysis.
With the chronology squared, we reconsider the assumption that the Paleans did not introduce their weaving style to Lithos due to geographic barriers. The Brim river, which separates the two cultures, is too broad and deep for any other crossing beside boat. Further, researchers have found no Palean boats. Ignoring the possibility of Litho boats (a statement not made in the passage), it is unclear whether the river assessment is based on a historical reckoning of the river and surrounding geographic features. Rivers may shift paths over time without artificial harnessing. Weather patterns also change throughout time. It is possible that the river was more narrow, more dry, or less deep and therefore navigable in the ancient era without the help of technology. Indeed, if passable, the Palean could have shared the knowledge. On the other hand, if not, then we strengthen the current argument.
The question of geography relies upon the assumption of Palean weaving, but what if that conclusion is erroneous? An alternative is that outsiders either introduced or influenced the design. It is possible that travelers brought baskets or designs on other items. This would still support the claim that the model is not specific to Palea but on a different basis. If these outsiders were nomads, that could explain why baskets exist in more than one area. Trade was not uncommon for prehistoric peoples. For example, bartered artifacts from as far away as Florida were found in the ancient Cahokia Mounds of Southern Illinois. With more inquiry into the theory of influencers, the claim may still stand, only the reason for why the baskets are not unique to Palea would change.
If the author is to provide their best attempt at an enhanced and factual ethnography, then they must include time-dating, a timeline of the villages, a historical understanding of the river's spatial features and the region's concurrent weather patterns, as well as a consideration of the cultural impact of nomads in the area. While it is not clear whether the outcome of each investigation would support or dispute the passage's argument, it is certain that they would bolster any conclusion's rigor.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 514 350
No. of Characters: 2616 1500
No. of Different Words: 264 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.761 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.089 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.761 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 165 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.037 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.552 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.593 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.241 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.424 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.037 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 66, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...hronological information would clear up some of the over-generalization of the passage. The...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 862, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'conclusions'' or 'conclusion's'?
Suggestion: conclusions'; conclusion's
... nomads in the region would bolster any conclusions rigor.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, similarly, so, still, then, therefore, well, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3105.0 2260.96107784 137% => OK
No of words: 607.0 441.139720559 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11532125206 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96360453597 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71651928736 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 290.0 204.123752495 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.477759472817 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 976.5 705.55239521 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 88.5557589826 57.8364921388 153% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.857142857 119.503703932 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9047619048 23.324526521 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52380952381 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.224675408975 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0600078102148 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0567680798964 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134445457023 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0540131725288 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.01 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 98.500998004 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.