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 this passage, the author concludes that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely from Palean. To support his/her claim, the author cites current status of Brim River. Furthermore, the author emphasizes that no Palean boats have been found until now. Quite convincing though such conclusion appears at first glance, a closer scrutiny reveals that it lacks crucial supports and therefore we should consider more evidence to help evaluation such ratiocination.
To start off, we need more evidence to verify if geological situation around Palean has been changed during the long history. While it is shown that the Brim River stays very deep and board nowadays, no evidence serves to rule out the probability that it were ever shoal and not so board in the ancient time. Thus, additional evidence gains great significance to determine whether the vicissitude may really happen long time ago. If new evidence shows that this river was ever very shadow and not so wide as it is now, it is reasonably safe to claim that villager of Palean could easily travel across the river with woven baskets and his/her reasoning will be weakened. On the contrary, if new information discloses an opposite situation, his/her conclusion will be strengthened.
Furthermore, we need more evidence to ascertain whether any boats existed in other villages rather than Palea. While no boat has been found in Palean, we can not easily eliminate the probability that other villages possessed such traffic vehicles. If existence of boats in Lithos and other villages nearby Palea has been confirmed by further investigation, the infeasibility of Woven baskets from Paleans to Lithos is in great doubt and his/her reasoning will be rendered much less compelling. If the author could sufficiently demonstrate that no other boats could be provided by other villages nearby, we are disposed to believe that Woven baskets has little chance to be transported from Palean to Lithos.
Last but not least, despite the presence of all previous evidence, a more accurate evaluation of the author's conclusion requires additional evidence. Specific evidence is needed to decide whether there exists extensive business trades to transcend Woven baskets from Palean to Lithos; that is to say, ancient trades between villages surrounding Palaen ever flourished and people might resort to other transportation, such as inland transportation, to make Woven basket available in Lithos. If the answer is positive, his/her conclusion will be weakened. On the contrary, if archaeologists could not find robust information to evince such alternatives for transmitting Woven baskets to Lithos, we are supposed to believe that his/her conclusion gain more weights.
In summary, the evidence cited by the author in the passage could not provide sufficiently conclusive information to make his/her conclusion compelling. As a result, we need to consider more evidence to better evaluate such conclusion.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 472 350
No. of Characters: 2439 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.661 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.167 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.762 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.371 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.895 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.556 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.237 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 14, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n such ratiocination. To start off, we need more evidence to verify if geolo...
^^
Line 5, column 520, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ery shadow and not so wide as it is now, it is reasonably safe to claim that vill...
^^
Line 9, column 478, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun compelling is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...his/her reasoning will be rendered much less compelling. If the author could suffici...
^^^^
Line 13, column 102, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ence, a more accurate evaluation of the authors conclusion requires additional evidence...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, may, really, so, then, therefore, thus, while, in summary, such as, as a result, on the contrary, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2513.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40430107527 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84969688627 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498924731183 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.4185350821 57.8364921388 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.263157895 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4736842105 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42105263158 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.151165830831 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525376620281 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05288653035 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0860711266106 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527800704508 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.