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.

The author of this prompt concluded that the palean basket are not uniquely made due to the evidence that recently archaeologists found out that the palean basket was found in another village called Lithos, which was far away from the endemic village of the basket in Palea, the originator of the palean basket. Before the conclusion of this argument could be properly reached, certain evidences are needed to be provided by the author.
Firstly, the author mentions that archaeologists found out recently about the new village having the same type of basket which the palean people had. The deduction for the Palean village was done years before the Litho village. Time changes and the time difference betwen which the two conclusions were derived at different intervals which was not provided by the author. People in Litho could have gone to palea to learn the process of making the basket from their specialist and would have learnt how to make it and go back to teach their people which might have led to the people of Litho learning how to make the basket whereby the distance of the two villages from each other would not have been an hindrance. The author needs to provide the time instances of the two periods and also the time cannot be compared due to changes. If the illustration above is proved valid, then the conclusion of the argument is flawed.
Secondly, the author did not provide information on checking the other villages when the basket was seen in Palea. Other villages around Palea (either close or far away) could have been into the production of the basket, the fact that the basket was made in just one city does not restrict other people from producing the same type of basket, the basket might not have originated from the Palea village, it might have been brought in by either someone who learnt it elsewhere or maybe even a stranger from another village might have been the originator of the basket in the village of palea. The author needs to provide evidence on the other villages that may be into the production of the basket rather than assuming that it was only produced in the village of palea. If the illustration above is proved valid, then the conclusion of the argument is weakened.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands is flawed due to reliance on unwarranted assumptions, the author needs to provide more evidence on the differences of the year each test of the villages were carried out, checking other villages for the production pf the basket.This evidences will test the viability of the argument that the basket was not only made in palea

Votes
Average: 5.8 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 701, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ges from each other would not have been an hindrance. The author needs to provide ...
^^
Line 4, column 269, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...llages for the production pf the basket.This evidences will test the viability of th...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2145.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 448.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78794642857 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4349711748 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.386160714286 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 681.3 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 34.0 22.8473053892 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 124.257177474 57.8364921388 215% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 165.0 119.503703932 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.4615384615 23.324526521 148% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53846153846 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.287493250855 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0986573732424 0.0743258471296 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0916358346271 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189055109779 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508969691601 0.0628817314937 81% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.4 14.3799401198 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.43 48.3550499002 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.1389221557 140% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 449 350
No. of Characters: 2113 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.603 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.706 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.366 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 34.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 22.724 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.419 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.419 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5