Archaeologists have long thought that an artifact called the pemchint was used by Dodecan people solely as a musical instrument. Pemchints consist of hollowed pieces of bone, shell, or wood that are tied together with long straps. When whirled in the air, the pemchints create pleasant tones. Until recently, pemchints were found only at locations known to be used for Dodecan rituals and celebrations. Additionally, they were always excavated in proximity to other musical artifacts. Recently, however, a pemchint was found along with Dodecan hunters' tools located miles from the nearest known Dodecan settlement, while no other music-related objects were found in the area. Clearly, then, the pemchint was used by Dodecan hunters, who most probably used the sounds to repel dangerous wildlife.
The excerpt argues that the pemchint was a tool used by Dodecan hunters, and hunters used the tool to create sounds repelling dangerous wildlife. The excerpt mentions that the pemchint was firstly regarded as a musical instrument, and it was found in locations where Dodecan people held rituals and celebrations. Also, other musical artifacts were found near the pemchint. However, the discovery of a pemchint found along with Dedecan hunters’ tools implies that this tool was not a musical instrument, especially considering that the place where this tool was found was far away from Dodecan people’s settlement, and no musical instruments were found. Although what the excerpt claims seems logical at first glance, it is actually unconvincing on several grounds.
First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. After all, the excerpts mentions that before the new pemchint was found near hunters’ tools, it was often found with other musical instruments for several times. In other words, the new discovery may be just a coincidence, and it was also possible that some Dodecan hunters took the pemchint for entertainment purposes when they hunted animals out of their settlement. In short, finding the pemchint without other musical instruments for just once may not confirm the argument that the pemchint was not a musical instrument.
Secondly, the excerpt neglects other possibilities for the purpose of the pemchint. The excerpt, after claiming that the pemchint was not a musical instrument, hastily concludes that the pemchint was used for repelling dangerous wildlife. However, another explanation is that the tool was used by hunters for other kinds of information delivery. To be more specific, hunters may use this tool to inform other hunters of some information, such as asking other hunters to gather together. Therefore, without ruling out other possibilities of the pemchint’s use, the excerpt may not conclude that this tool was used for repelling wildlife.
Thirdly, One major assumption in short of legitimacy is the function of the pemchint both in the past and in the recent study. It is noteworthy that the pemchint was made of bone, shell, or wood that were tied together, and the tool could create pleasant tones. However, the study in the past did not rule out the possibility that the pemchint was only regarded as an accessory or a decoration of Dodecan hunters, and it is possible that Dodecan hunters just brought the pemchint so that they would have good luck. And the recent study failed to exclude this possibility either. Therefore, the excerpts’ assumption about the use of the pemchint may be fundamentally wrong at the beginning.
In conclusion, the excerpt fails to prove that the pemchint was used by Dodecan hunters for repelling dangerous animals. It is possible that Dodecan hunters took this pemchint by accident for only once. Another explanation is that the pemchint was only an accessory, but not a musical instrument or a tool for repelling wildlife. It is also possible that Dodecan hunters used this tool for their mutual communication, but not for repelling wildlife.
- The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago Furthermore there has been 58
- The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo Inc a chain of hobby shops Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon We discovered that there a 58
- Claim Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive Reason It is primarily in cities that a nation s cultural traditions are preserved and generated 75
- The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them not by their contemporaries 83
- Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 507 350
No. of Characters: 2571 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.745 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.071 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.656 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.043 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.101 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.783 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.144 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, after all, in conclusion, in short, such as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2654.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23471400394 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80464356804 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.390532544379 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 798.3 705.55239521 113% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.67365269461 597% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0942956016 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.391304348 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0434782609 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.69565217391 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267938266506 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10665211654 0.0743258471296 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0672411388355 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183748719832 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0315226243186 0.0628817314937 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.