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 writer of the argument concludes that Palean basket are not uniquely made on the Palea because a Palean basket was seen in Lithos; however this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on a number of premises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
The first problem with the argument is that the writer assumes that a Palean basket made in Lithos because of archaeologists saw a basket in Lithos. However, there is no evidence to prove that Palean basket actually made in Lithos because of seeing one basket in Lithos. For example, maybe that basket goes across Brim River from Palea because somebody dropped the basket in the Brim River and the river flow the basket to Lithos or maybe someone who had Palean basket move to Lithos and take his/her Palean basket to the Lithos and after a while sold that basket to people in Lithos.
Another problems with the argument is that the writer assumes that Palean people didn’t have any boat because no Palean boats had been found. However, there is no evidence to definitely prove that this is the case. Maybe the people in Palea had boats but they transferred boats to another place. Or maybe people in Lithos had boat and went to Palea to buy a Palean basket. Or maybe Palean boats destroyed over the years. The argument didn’t discuss about this circumstances.
A third problems with the argument is that the writer assumes that things remain the same over the years. However, in most cases this is not true. Maybe ten years ago the Brim River is narrow and shallow but now it is very deep and broad. Or maybe in the past people in Lithos and Palea trade their products by roads but now they transport their product by boats. As a result, we can’t accept the writer argument about the transportation conditions on that time because he/she didn’t explain it vividly.
In the final analysis, the writer’s conclusion cannot be taken to be correct because, as it was shown in the body paragraphs above, it depends on a number of assumptions each of which is questionable. The conclusion can only be accepted if the weaknesses already referred to all removed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 384 350
No. of Characters: 1725 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.427 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.492 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.314 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 67 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 37 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 17 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.588 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.937 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.36 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.582 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.159 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 466, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... The argument didn't discuss about this circumstances. A third problems with...
^^^^
Line 7, column 9, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'problem'?
Suggestion: problem
...ss about this circumstances. A third problems with the argument is that the writer as...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, so, third, while, for example, as a result, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1798.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 379.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.74406332454 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4858998365 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.414248021108 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 562.5 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
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: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.043516787 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.764705882 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2941176471 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70588235294 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148592432972 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0509471106852 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0468294443073 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0775055278734 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0449283314797 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.02 8.32208582834 84% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 98.500998004 56% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => 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.