The argument claims that woven baskets were not originally Palean. Stated in this way the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology and fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the discovered baskets in Lithos were analogous to the Palean one. This statement is a stretch since the author did not provide any archaeological evidence indicating those baskets are similar to Palean baskets. For example, manufacture time or material of those baskets. Clearly, the author did not show detail information to compare with the baskets of Palean people. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that which characteristics of the discovered baskets match with Palean baskets.
Second, the argument claims that there is no Palean boats have been found in Lithos therefore Paleans did not cross the Brim River. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between ancient Palean people could have crossed the river and no Palean boats have been found in the other side of the river. To illustrate, Palean people might find another path to cross the river therefore they did not need to use boats. If the argument had provided evidence that crossing the river is the only way to go to Lithos then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument is still not clear in many aspects. How many percent the discovered baskets match with Palean baskets? What if people from Lithos crossed the river to Paleans’ land and came home with the native’s baskets? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts to support the current conclusion that woven baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Essay evaluation report
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 366 350
No. of Characters: 1856 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.374 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.071 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.651 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.347 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 475, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...erefore they did not need to use boats. If the argument had provided evidence that...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, if, second, so, still, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1915.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 366.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23224043716 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77711912523 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486338797814 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 586.8 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.3963075809 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.789473684 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2631578947 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68421052632 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.201740377152 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695432068614 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0639162386284 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108028810348 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585024179274 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.