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.
The origin of the basket which was found in the Palean is under doubt. According the initial evidence and author's assumptions its origin would be Palea. Then, a basket has been found in Lithos that was apart from Palea by a wide river and there is not any evidence for boats in this area. So , the author concluded that the origin of that kind of basket is not specificly Palea.
The first assumption that should be investiagted is that the origin of the basket should be one of these two cities which are mentioned above whereas it could be another place and then bring to these areas. The author did not mention any causes to proof his idea such that type of sweing, materials, colors, chemical treatment which used or any special painting or symbols.
Traveling from both cities by just boat is another assumption that are not neccerily correct. The author explained that because there is not any evidences of existing of boat in this area they could not travel between two areas and as a result the origin is not obvious. But we can count different methods for crossing the river such as bridge or finding a place that the riverside has narrow width to cross the river without boat. Apart from that it may that the evidance of boat completly destroied or remained undescovered until now and maybe archaeologists could find some in the future.
Providing some reasons to proof that this type of basket is special for this area could help the argument to seem persuasive. For example, spacial type of materials, usage and painting could provide some cogent causes that approve his idea. To strengthen the argument, the author can provide some archaeologic evidence such as the origin time of each baskets in these two areas and then according the time he can conclude cogntly. Another suggestion is that finding evidences for traveling between these two cities and roads that people had used previously.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 329 350
No. of Characters: 1552 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.259 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.717 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.35 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 103 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 70 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 44 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.679 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.571 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 292, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... any evidence for boats in this area. So , the author concluded that the origin of...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, so, then, whereas, apart from, for example, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1585.0 2260.96107784 70% => OK
No of words: 329.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81762917933 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41022652861 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.480243161094 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9205925905 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.214285714 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.71428571429 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0535549189566 0.218282227539 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0264398663797 0.0743258471296 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0389461287814 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0406089320868 0.128457276422 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0544768559044 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.