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.
The conclusion drawn here is based on conjecture. That is, no clue can be traced for the distinctive origin of Palean baskets. The argument here is based on the absence of Palean boats which might have crossed the river in the ancient era if the basket found in the Lithos was actually Palean.
The argument raised here speaks about the Brim river characteristics- deep and broad. But on the other side of the argument, there is no mention of the nature of the river during the ancient era. It is highly possible that environmental fluctuations led to some changes in its characteristics. For example, in early age, the river was exposed to sun and remained almost dry, but due to climatic change in after years the landscape of the river completely changed.
Another counter-argument in favor of the current nature of Brim river can also be drawn. Supposing that Brim river characteristics have not changed over time, there is a high possibility that the Palean boats got washed away because due to flood in the prehistoric times, thus leaving no significant trace. Or, the material used to make the Palean boats were biodegradable and thus got decomposed in the soil.
There is also a slight possibility based on itinerants from both Lithos and Palea. That is people who traveled from Lithos bought baskets from Palea. Another point can be that Palean people bought those baskets from other areas. A lack of information about the Lithos people fails to give a complete picture of the society and technological development back then. As there is no strong evidence of origin we cannot tell that they belong to Palea.
Another discrepancy witnessed here is about the nature of Palean baskets. It is highly possible that the traces of basket are found only in Palea because the raw materials used were grown in the arable lands of Palea. On the other hand, it is possible that in early days raw materials were available in Lithos but the designing of baskets was done in Palea.
Since there is no cogency in any of the arguments drawn in the given paragraph, no straight conclusion can be drawn of the origin of Palean basket. Absence of whereabouts of boats is not the only thing which can be used to that the baskets were not of Palean origin.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 390 350
No. of Characters: 1819 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.444 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.664 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.611 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 117 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 73 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 46 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.58 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.592 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 365, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...nd technological development back then. As there is no strong evidence of origin w...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, so, then, thus, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1870.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 390.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.79487179487 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66138530264 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.451282051282 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 596.7 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2928565251 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.55 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => 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: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144634038325 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0468125608899 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0495686671854 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.08427046254 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0484130663175 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.57 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.