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 archaeol

Essay topics:

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 the argument, the author concludes that Palean baskets are not uniquely Palean, but also created by Lithos people. To bolster the argument, the author points out that the river between Lithos and Palean can only be crossed by boat and no boat has been found so far. However, it is still replete with a myriad of assumptions which could not suffice to back the argument.

To begin, the author unfairly claims that because the Brim River is very deep and broad, ancient residents can only cross it by boat. Here, the author obviously rests on the unwarranted assumption that in the ancient time, the river used to be deep and broad as it is now. However, it is possible that because of global warming, the sea level has risen up recently. The Brim River, thus, also becomes wider and deeper than before. And, maybe in the time when Palean people lived near the river, there was not a river anymore, and even if there was a river, it is highly likely that the river was so shallow and narrow that Palean people could easily went across the river. In short, more information to address the question that whether the Brim River before was as broad and deep as now is needed to corroborate the author’s reasoning.

Furthermore, assuming that indeed the Brim River was very deep and broad before, it does not mean that Palean people can only cross the river by boat. The author assumes that Palean people cannot make use of other ways to cross the river at that time, but the author fails to provides any evidence to support the assumption. Perhaps, Palean people built a bridge by which they could cross the river without boats, or in somewhere not far from their town, the river became very shallow and could be easily crossed. It is also likely that Palean town was in temperate zone where winter was very cold and the Brim River become frozen in winter, and thus, Palean people can cross the river by their own feet. Therefore, in order to fully persuade the readers, the author should provide more detailed information regarding whether Palean people have other ways to cross the Brim River despite boats.

Finally, even if Palean people can only cross the river by boat, no boats being found now does not necessarily mean that Palean people could not access to the opposite bank. The author assumes that all the ancient boats can be reserved well and can be found by nowadays people. However, the assumption is unwarranted. If those ancient boats made by Palean people were made of wood, they can be easily decomposed and cannot be reserved to now. Also, it is possible that there are boats hidden somewhere near the river, but people now have difficulties to find them because of the limits of detectors and excavation machines. Thus, without additional information of the material of the boats and the advancement of detecting machines, it is difficult to access the merit of the statement proposed by the writer.

In a nutshell, the argument is unconvincing as it relies on several unjustifiable assumptions. If the argument has included the given factors discusses above, it would have been more logically acceptable.

Average: 5.9 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 651, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'go', 'wend'
Suggestion: go; wend
... narrow that Palean people could easily went across the river. In short, more inform...
Line 5, column 277, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'provide'.
Suggestion: provide
...r at that time, but the author fails to provides any evidence to support the assumption....

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, therefore, thus, well, in short

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2596.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 542.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78966789668 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36160055339 2.78398813304 85% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.422509225092 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 807.3 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1698180571 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.0 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6363636364 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.72727272727 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12956842311 0.218282227539 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0460050604315 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441895977388 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0885074719523 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0290957411541 0.0628817314937 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.8 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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: 542 350
No. of Characters: 2519 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.825 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.648 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.27 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.993 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5