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.
As the argument presents, special type of woven baskets including distinctive patterns were found near the village of Palea that caused archeologist to assign them to the Palean people. However, the same baskets and patterns were also available at the Lithos which is located across a deep river called Berim. According to the provided information the author concludes the so-called Palean baskets are not necessarily belong to Palean people. However, the author neglects to bring essential evidences that makes the argument untenable.
Firstly, the author mentions that the baskets have been found in immediate vicinity of the Palea. However, the measurement of vicinity needs clarification. If the author seeks to assign baskets by a particular pattern to the Palean, he is required to provide evidence about the location and distance of the place that they found the baskets to the Palea. Perhaps, the baskets were not a significant artifact of Palea or even Lithos, but it belonged to some other unknown city. Maybe, that anonymous city used to export these baskets to other places. Therefore, convincing proof and information regarding the history of the baskets, the places that these baskets were discovered along with their time should be provided to make the argument creditable.
Secondly, the fact that they have found baskets in Lithos where is separated by a deep and broad river from Palea includes numerous unanswered questions and without further evidence regarding the methods of transportation at that time era, the author cannot reach at the conclusion that these two places were not able to communicate. As the author claims, the archeologist were incapable of finding any boats so it is possible that people used to have a simple wooden bridge according to their own time technology that they used the bridge to go across the river and reach Lithos. In addition, the author fails to consider alternative possibilities such as other road from other city to circumvent the river. Therefore, the author cannot imply that the Berim river prohibited Palean people to communicate with Lithos residents.
Another fact that the author needs to take into consideration and bring substantial evidence is about the environmental change. How can the author guarantee that there were not changes in the environment of the area where Lithos and Palea are located? The information regarding the age of Berim river can weaken or strengthen the argument. If the river existed there before creation of Lithos and Palea the argument may receive credit, otherwise, examining the obstacles that river causes in the communication of these two cities according to the river’s current situation is totally fallacious.
To recapitulate, thoroughly examining the above-mentioned historical and environmental pivotal factors and bringing sufficient evidences for each one lead to a credible evaluation of the argument. If the seeks to state a convincing argument he needs to ponder over alternative possibilities regarding baskets, otherwise the argument is refutable.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 481 350
No. of Characters: 2538 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.683 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.277 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.8 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.05 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.386 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2593.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 481.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39085239085 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88811778161 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465696465696 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 837.9 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.0202910902 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.65 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.05 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.201238459234 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.071592623321 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0855598994435 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115277024833 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100383108713 0.0628817314937 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.