In the preceding argument the author claims that woven baskets found in Palea with specific characteristics are actually not unique to Palea because it was also found in the adjacent village Lithos, to which Palean had no access because of a deep river between them. Although this argument may seem quite reasonable and convincing at first galnce, upon careful scrutiny, it is rife with flaws and premises. More survey and investigation are required to reach a concrete conclusion.
To begin with, the author implies that Palean could not cross the Brim River without a boat between Palea and Lithos because it is wide and deep. Since no boat was found in the Palea village, the possibility that the baskets found in Lithos were passed from Palea to Lithos is precluded. However, in archaeology, one must consider all the circumstances in a prehistorical situation. We do not know what did the river look like in ancient times. It is quite likely that the Brim River was newly born at the Palean's era, therefore is not as wide and deep as it is now, thus was easy for Palean people to walk or swim across the river.
What's more, given the Brim River was indeed deep and broad, the author's argument that Palean were not able to cross it because no boat was found is still not concrete. The author did not mention if the Palea village was thoroughly explored. If not, the lack of evidence of the existence of boat cannot demonstrate that Palean haven't constructed any, but due to the reason that the archaeologists haven't found the remains yet, or the boat was built by some easily-eroded material, such as wood, and therefore cannot lasts long. So the author need to present more information to make the argument cogent.
Lastly, building upon the arguments mentioned previously, the author reached a conclusion that the woven baskets with Palean characteristics found in Lithos must originated there, for his/her evidences preclude any possibility of Palean transporting baskets to Lithos. However, more investigation on the Lithos is needed to demonstrate this conclusion. Although it may be true that Palean couldn't cross the Brim River, but we do not know if it was people in Lithos, who somehow have the ability to built boats, played the role of communication between these two places across the river and brought Palean baskets back to their own village. Without this confirmed, the conclusion is not persuasive at all.
A woven basket found in Lithos is quite likely to show that it is not unique to Palea, but the arguments provided by the author here are clearly not enough to reach such a conclusion, and deeper and more thorough exploration is required to get a scienfitic and accurate conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...le to walk or swim across the river. Whats more, given the Brim River was indeed d...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 65, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...im River was indeed deep and broad, the authors argument that Palean were not able to c...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 327, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
... of boat cannot demonstrate that Palean havent constructed any, but due to the reason ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 397, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...e to the reason that the archaeologists havent found the remains yet, or the boat was ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 390, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...on. Although it may be true that Palean couldnt cross the Brim River, but we do not kno...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, lastly, look, may, so, still, therefore, thus, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2261.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9152173913 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6971901293 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460869565217 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 701.1 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => 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: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.8714476709 57.8364921388 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.0 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0588235294 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47058823529 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.149631112173 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0502770317883 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0413081232303 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.092627464962 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0193552600922 0.0628817314937 31% => 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: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.