At first glance, the argument seems cogent, however, after careful analysis, we can find the argument lacks some substantial proof and evidence, thus making it less persuasive. More research should be conducted to verify the conclusion of the argument.
First and foremost, the arguments assume that it was impossible for the Palean people to cross the deep and broad Brim River. However, the author forgets to consider a possibility that the depth of the Brim River is different than current depth and was shallow enough for the Palean people to cross it. Without ruling out this possibility, it is possible that the Palean people brought their woven baskets across the river, and those woven baskets later discovered by the archaeologist. If any evidence showing that the ancient Brim River was not deep enough hindering people's traversal, then the argument's validity would fall apart.
Secondly, the arguments draw the conclusion relying on the mere fact that no Paleans boats have been found, however, it is still possible that ancient people in Lithos used boats to cross the Brim River and trade with Palean people. If there is evidence proving use of boats of villagers of ancient Lithos people, the argument is totally undermined, because it implies that the Palean basket in Lithos could be acquired by Lithos people using their boats. After all, the author has to provide further data and proof for supporting his theory.
Thirdly, this argument is based on the assumption that the Palean basket excavated in Lithos was made by villagers in Lithos. However, no substantial data were given to confirm that assumption. What if the Palean basket was manufactured in prehistoric Palean, but later after a thousand years it was traded by local people? To claim that Palean baskets are not unique, the author has to give proof showing that the "Palean" baskets found in Lithos are not actually made by Paleans.
If the "Palean" baskets have some peculiar characteristics that are not common in Palean baskets, then this evidence may conduce to the veracity of the arguments.
To recapitulate, the arguments lack some data regarding the depth of ancient Brim River, the use of the boat in Lithos village, and the proof that the woven baskets recently found is actually from Lithos. Without further evidence, the conclusion the author made remains questionable.
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: 02
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1929 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.984 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.439 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.188 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.925 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.378 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.608 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 227, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...he depth of the Brim River is different than current depth and was shallow enough fo...
^^^^
Line 3, column 570, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...rim River was not deep enough hindering peoples traversal, then the arguments validity ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 598, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...h hindering peoples traversal, then the arguments validity would fall apart. Secondly,...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, thus, after all, as to
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 : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2010.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19379844961 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70734700044 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.46511627907 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.9002931598 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.625 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1875 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169906321801 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.06209473837 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0480950656886 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0927612025502 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0513148775152 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => 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.