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 the argument has failed to convince us that Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. The arguments, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.
To begin with, in the beginning of the argument, the writer states a faulty causal relationship. Just because the baskets were found in the vicinity of Palea, It does not mean that it belongs to Palean people. The author ignores the fact that the basket could have been brought from other or nearby villages. What if the baskets were held by tradesmen and then abandoned in their way traveling to another country for commerce? What if Palean people had borrowed the knowledge of weaving baskets from another community? The arguer fails to pay attention to the other possible factors and takes the ONLY factor available and put it into account. The argument could have been stronger if the had mentioned enough and substantial evidence concerning the origin of the woven baskets.
Next, the author mentions a recent discovery concerning another possible origin of the baskets, at another city over the Brim River. The author states that due to the fact that there “is” a deep, broad river between the two cities, and the fact that Palean people did not have access to a boat, It is not uniquely theirs. To start with, the author uses a vague term and does not justify further evidence for his/her assumption. It is said that “the Brim river is very deep and broad”. The mentioned sentence is full of mistakes. What does the present tense of the sentence mean here? Assuming that the tense means the present time, the author judges about an ancient city and its artifact based on present information. Maybe at that time, there were nothing but ploughland between two cities, or maybe the two cities were both parts of a bigger city. The author fails to clarify what he/she means by the stated information. The passage would have been stronger if the author had not used a vague term and clarified his/her statement with scrutiny.
Finally, the author draws a cause and effect relationship which follows a big gap in logic. The arguer states that because no boats were found, the baskets were not uniquely Palean. Hence, it is unconvincing to make such a big conclusion with little evidence. Maybe there were boats made by Palean people and the blame is on researchers who excavated the area. Maybe they even had the knowledge to use boats and to make them but they were all burned in an inclement weather. What if the depth of the water, at that time, were not the same as it is today. The author fails to mention the fact that the passage of time changes things. What is true today, mentioning depth and the broad of the river, cannot be true tomorrow. The author even mentions a discovery, which could be faulty and erroneous. At last, the author’s conclusion and the leap in logic fail to convince the reader about the information provided. The passage would have been more sound if the arguer had provided enough evidence for the causal relationship drawn.
To conclude, based on substantial assumptions and poor evidence, the arguers’ reasoning does not provide concrete support of his/her conclusion. If the argument had included the items discussed, it would have been more thorough and convincing.
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'to begin with', 'to start with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.241960183767 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.16539050536 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0842266462481 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0336906584992 0.0520304965353 65% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0260336906585 0.0272364105082 96% => OK
Prepositions: 0.102603369066 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0474732006126 0.0416121511921 114% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.60331448237 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0245022970904 0.026700313972 92% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.139356814701 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.010719754977 0.0255425247493 42% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0153139356815 0.0127820249294 120% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3395.0 2731.13054187 124% => OK
No of words: 574.0 446.07635468 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.91463414634 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89472135074 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.350174216028 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.243902439024 0.287650121315 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.162020905923 0.208842608468 78% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.106271777003 0.135150697306 79% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60331448237 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 207.018472906 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440766550523 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 52.3722910709 52.1807786196 100% => OK
How many sentences: 32.0 20.039408867 160% => OK
Sentence length: 17.9375 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.036017383 57.7814097925 54% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.09375 141.986410481 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9375 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.28125 0.724660767414 39% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 42.3277439024 51.9672348444 81% => OK
Elegance: 1.74149659864 1.8405768891 95% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.444071146492 0.441005458295 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0954279052839 0.135418324435 70% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0754587008925 0.0829849096947 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.530785065076 0.58762219726 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.116547949124 0.147661913831 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.180649777146 0.193483328276 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701976164123 0.0970749176394 72% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.547561517311 0.42659136922 128% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.122753324546 0.0774707102158 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.325309346666 0.312017818177 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0948725961607 0.0698173142475 136% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.87684729064 262% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.82512315271 207% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 13.0 5.36822660099 242% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 23.0 14.657635468 157% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.