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, archa

Essay topics:

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.

In the author's argument, it is stated that the Palean basket pattern is not unique to only Palean. The author has come to this conclusion based on the discovery of the basket with the same pattern found in Lithos, the obstacle of Brim river, and the lack of evidence of Palean boat. However, before this argument can be appropriately evaluated, three evidence is needed.

First of all, it is possible that Brim river has changed since Palea village time. In other words, the depth and width of the may not be the same at the time the author was writing this argument. It is possible that Brim river during Palea era did not be too broad and too deep to cross without a boat, or Brim river was dried out while in a drought period. Further, it is plausible that there are geographical pieces of evidence around Brim river area that show the river width and depth in chronological order. If the evidence is found, then the conclusion drawn in the argument is weakened.

Secondly, Lithosian may be able to build a boat that can cross the Brim river. The evidence of Palean capability to build a boat is not yet found, so both Lithos and Palea will never be able to trade the basket. However, it might not be the case. Perhaps, Lithosian is the one who is capable of building a boat and be able to transport the basket to their village. If the Lithosian boat is found, then the argument does not hold the water.

Lastly, Lithos and Palea village may have shared the same ancestor. There is a possibility that the ancestor of both Palean and Lithosian is the one who concocts the Palean basket pattern so both of them can make it – without being able to cross the river to trade. DNA comparison between Palean and Lithosian may answer the origin of both tribes. If the DNA test result shows that they have a shared ancestor, then the author's assumption will be weakened.

In conclusion, as it stands now, it is considerably flawed due to its reliance on weak evidence and unwarranted assumptions. If the author can find the counter-evidence to evidence as shown above (perhaps in the form of geographical evidence and systematic archaeologist research), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument to prove that the Palean basket pattern is not unique.

Votes
Average: 6.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 8, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
In the authors argument, it is stated that the Palean ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 421, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t they have a shared ancestor, then the authors assumption will be weakened. In conc...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, while, in conclusion, first of all, in other words

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1893.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.67407407407 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54653504305 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.42962962963 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 591.3 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1260946811 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6315789474 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3157894737 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84210526316 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.125221523254 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0499548319362 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494714095399 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0801903095407 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457107484312 0.0628817314937 73% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.5979740519 78% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.33 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- not really
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 1827 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.522 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.47 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 115 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 77 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.904 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5