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

The author of the passage concludes that a kind of woven basket with distinctive pattern were not native to the Palea village. The facts he discovered were, a similar patterned basket is said to be discovered in the ancient Lithos village which is located across the Brim river that originated from Palea. Apparently, he states that, since there were no traces of boats in Palea, the Palea citizens could not have crossed the Brim river. Hence there is no way for them to have educated the Lithos population with the unique pattern of the woven baskets. I agree to few of the points considered by the author, but the author fails to substantiate the statements with solid evidences.
Firstly, the author failed to mention the Archeological facts about the woven baskets found in Palea. Data regarding the carbon dating of the woven basket is highly important to match the woven baskets' origin. What if the results of the carbon dating matches with the Palea village? Solid proofs must be produced to validate the exact origin of the woven baskets. High chances are expected for the woven baskets to be indigenous to the Palea village.
Furthermore to add, Palea natives could have used other means of transports to reach the Lithos village. Transportations like Bullock, horse run carts could have been loaded with the woven baskets for trading purposes. Suppose, the people of Lithos village were allured by the unique pattern, they could have bought them for exchange of things as in the Barter system of trading followed by ancient people. Therefore, these statements enervate the vague arguments in the passage.
The most important possibility is the Palea origins could have migrated to Lithos under various ecological variations. The author failed to corroborate the age of the villages. Prehistoric and Ancient villages are the only facts provided. Migration of people is common in those days. Various reasons for migration can be identified like they abandon their native to find a livelihood in another village; natural calamities could push people to the nearby location. Chances for Artistry to have been thrived in Palea and hence to teach their special technique, artists migrated to Lithos.
To recapitulate, Archeological data, other means of transportation,Exchange of goods for trade and migration are the major evidences that are required to decide upon the origin of the woven baskets. In spite of the plausible proof about the boats in Palea, the author failed to provide evidences regarding the above discussed criterias.

Votes
Average: 5.5 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 439, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... could not have crossed the Brim river. Hence there is no way for them to have educat...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 563, Rule ID: TO_TOO[2]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...e pattern of the woven baskets. I agree to few of the points considered by the aut...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...o be indigenous to the Palea village. Furthermore to add, Palea natives could have used o...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 498, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ation. Chances for Artistry to have been thrived in Palea and hence to teach thei...
^^
Line 5, column 67, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , Exchange
...ical data, other means of transportation,Exchange of goods for trade and migration are th...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 338, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...egarding the above discussed criterias.
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, regarding, so, therefore, kind of, in spite of

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2133.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 414.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15217391304 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72388488761 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485507246377 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 684.9 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.0137718468 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.9545454545 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8181818182 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68181818182 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253930013304 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0785381324921 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0539841996311 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137079466537 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.055348489681 0.0628817314937 88% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2086 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.027 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.536 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.891 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.328 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5