The argument stated here concludes that woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern attributed to Palean village may not be its unique creation due the discovery of the basket in another village nearby. The author uses the presence of a river dividing the two villages and absence of any evidence of boats to prove that Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. However, the author's assumptions are deeply flawed and the evidence presented is inconsequential in developing the cogency of the argument.
First of all, the author mentions that the river dividing the two villages is wide and deep and could not be crossed without boats. But the author makes a flawed assumption here. Although the river is wide and deep now, it might not have been the same years ago, when the civilization existed on its banks. It is possible that the river was narrow and shallow and could be crossed over on foot, making trade and exchange of goods possible. Such a possibility will invalidate the conclusion that the author arrives upon, since the baskets could have been brought to Lithos but Palean merchants.
Secondly, the author mentions that no boat has been found in the Palean village and hence rules out the possibility of boats having existed at the time. It is possible that perishable rafts made out of tree stalks were used by the people in the village to cross the river. Since rafts made out of stalks do not last for decades, no evidence of such boats has been found. But Just because no evidence has been found, does not rule out their existence altogether. Hence it is imprudent to assume that boats did not exist at all.
Moreover, it is possible that the idea of Palean baskets originated in the Palean village and was shared with the nearby villages using birds as messengers. Such modes of communications have been known to exist during the ancient times. Hence, ruling out the possibility of communication between the two villages completely is unwise.
Finally, building upon the author's assumption that no boats were used by the people, it is possible that other means of crossing the river might have existed at the time. For instance, a bridge connecting the two banks might have existed during those times, which may have been destroyed during a recent flooding and hence no evidence of the same remains. The presence of such a bridge can explain the exchange of goods from Palean to Lithos and hence the presence of Palean baskets in Lithos.
In consequence, it is highly unlikely that two different villages which existed during the same time periods, created the same woven baskets with the same unique patterns on them. This is possible only if some exchange mechanism existed between the two villages. Unless the author provides more evidence to substantiate the assumptions, the conclusion derives by the author is unsound.
- Educators should base their assessment of students' learning not on students' grasp of facts but on the ability to explain the ideas, trends, and concepts that those facts illustrate. 66
- Must art be widely understood to have merit? 58
- The desire of corporations to maximize profits contends with general welfare of the nation. 66
- 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 59
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 462, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
...ot rule out their existence altogether. Hence it is imprudent to assume that boats di...
Line 5, column 28, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... is unwise. Finally, building upon the authors assumption that no boats were used by t...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2387.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95228215768 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55416773813 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439834024896 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 757.8 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6667465564 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.5 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9090909091 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.72727272727 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => 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 : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250841641141 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760426965753 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544594346197 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136775414704 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364747550008 0.0628817314937 58% => OK
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2337 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.849 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.5 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.815 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.329 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5