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 argument fails to provide a conclusive evidence that the baskets found in Lithos were not uniquely Paleans. The argument states that the woven baskets made by Paleans are characterised by a distinctive pattern. It could be a case that nearby villages were also involved in the crafting of these baskets, but remained unnoticed.
The recently found basket from Lithos could have been transported or could have been bought by someone in Lithos(after all it had a unique creative design, which makes it one of a kind). There is no strong evidence to support the fact that the basket was crafted in Lithos.
The writer suggests subtly that as the Brim river was deep and broad, the Paleans could only cross it with the help of a boat, but there is no such evidence for the above-mentioned claim. Early civilizations, like Paleans, were well versed will various skills like hunting, running, swimming, etc. It is possible that they could have swim and crossed the entire stretch of Brim river. Owing to the presence of skilled craftsmen and builders in every civilization, there is a high possibility that there could have been a bridge for daily commuters like women and children but could have been destroyed due to some natural disatsters.
The inability of archaeologists to find the presence of boats doesn’t necessarily mean that the Paleans didn’t used them to cross rivers. They could have been destroyed in a storm, or the river stream could have engulfed the boat with it.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 10 15
No. of Words: 253 350
No. of Characters: 1203 1500
No. of Different Words: 140 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.988 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.755 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.568 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 77 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 58 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 38 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 18 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.3 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.533 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.4 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.4 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.4 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 334, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'swum'.
Suggestion: swum
...tc. It is possible that they could have swim and crossed the entire stretch of Brim ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, so, well, after all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 55.5748502994 52% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1244.0 2260.96107784 55% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 251.0 441.139720559 57% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9561752988 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.56307096286 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69983159648 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.565737051793 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 380.7 705.55239521 54% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.3039149871 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.090909091 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8181818182 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.72727272727 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
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 : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.245123017335 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0921597249774 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0662202730114 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15036996473 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0298347160342 0.0628817314937 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.