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 argument states that previously Woven baskets believed its production only Palea people, and later the archaeologists have found the same baskets in nearby Lithos. Although the archaeologists didn’t discover the mean by which these baskets carried, the prompt says that baskets are not unique. This prompt is rife of holes as it depends on unwarranted evidence; thus, to evaluate the argument evidence is needed.
First, if the baskets as they mentioned in the first part of the argument; and they made only by Palea people because the archaeologists didn’t discover such distinctive characteristic of baskets before Palea village. This evidence is unwarranted as it perhaps these baskets were made by other people, but the archaeologists didn’t discover them yet. AS it probably conveyed by connecting trade between those villages (Palea and somewhere else). Thus, the argument needs to provide geographic evidence whether there no other people who were older than Palea. If the above scenario is valid, that means the argument statement significantly weakened.
Second, if the second part of the argument is correct regarding that baskets are not unique because of discovering the nearby village, this is not strong evidence. Discovering another village nears to Palea village doesn’t mean anything regarding the argument concern. Let’s consider both sides; if the conclusion of the argument is correct and these baskets not unique; and it also made by this nearby village, there is missed evidence to valid such conclusion. The archaeologists didn’t find how these baskets transported from Palea village to Lithos; they didn’t even any evidence about the boats which proposed the mean of transportation. Therefore, before confirming such a conclusion; there is missed evidence of how these baskets were conveyed, then know who was the initiator for the basket. Thus, if this prospect has merit; the conclusion has drawn in the argument is invalid.
Third, being the river when they found it recently is deep that means that it was deep before as it could be more shallow and not such broad. The argument needs to provide more information about the weather as well as the geographic condition to be able to evaluate whether the river was deep and valid for boats or not. Again if the above situation is correct, the argument doesn’t hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed. The argument needs more evidence to be feasible to evaluate the conclusion. Otherwise, the provided information doesn’t support the validity of the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 2109 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.021 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.726 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.629 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 354, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...haeologists didn’t discover them yet. AS it probably conveyed by connecting trade...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, third, thus, well, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 12.9520958084 8% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2193.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 412.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32281553398 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8028369127 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.446601941748 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9458758019 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.65 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
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 : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.152183020999 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0493158437416 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0654769264195 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0899636918412 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722469822332 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.