"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.
Further evidence and logial conclusions should be made before evaluating that the baskets were not uniquely Palean. It is stated whether other tribes lived in the vicinity, if the distinct pattern was common among the prehistoric village of that time, or even if the Palean people needed a boat to cross the river, so the conclusion that the baskets were not Palean is fallible.
The statement concludes that because no Palean boats were found to evidence that the Paleans crossed the river to Lithos, the baskets with distinct patterns could not have been theirs. The fact that no boats were found does not necessarily mean that no boats were used. If the Paleans did in fact use boats to cross the river, it is not necessary that those boats stood the test of time to survive centuries later. This weakens the argument that the baskets were not uniquely Palean. Furthermore, it is not necessary that the Paleans did not cross the "deep and broad" river to Lithos if no boats were found. The phrase "deep and braod" is quite vague. If the river was not so deep and broad that the Paleans couldn't easily cross it by foot, then they would not have even needed boats, rendering the lack of boat evidence irrelevant to the Palean basket argument. But, maybe the river was in fact so deep and broad that it was impossible to journey by foot. The Paleans could have perhaps reached Lithos by foot, and therefore would not have needed the river for traveling. This would again weaken the argument that the baskets were not uniquely Palean.
The statement futher assumes that because the baskets were found in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea, they were believed to be made only by the Paleans. This perhaps may not be true if it is discovered that other tribes lived within the vicinity during or after the Paleans did. If so, then the notion that the baskets could have only been made by the Paleans is erroneaous and therefore the evidence further strengthens the argument that they could not have been uniquely Palean. Additionally, if the Paleans did not in fact use boats, cross the river, or travel to Lithos, but lived a unique and sole existence in Palea, and similar baskets were in fact found in Lithos, then perhaps the patterns on the baskets was common for that time period and relative region. This would elaborate the argument that the baskets were not uniquely Palean.
All in all, the assumptions made to reach the argument that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean are erroneous as further insight is needed whether or not Paleans used a method of travel other than boating to reach Lithos, whether the river was truly as "broad and deep" as to be intractable, and whether other groups lived in the vicinity and used the same basket patterns. Without this crucial information, the logical conclusions made to reach the argument are not well-founded or profound.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK, but the better way: maybe people in Lithos have boats;
argument 2 -- wrong or out of topic
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2354 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.671 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.263 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.526 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.049 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.414 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
Further evidence and logial conclusions should ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... not so deep and broad that the Paleans couldnt easily cross it by foot, then they woul...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 148, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... erroneous as further insight is needed whether or not Paleans used a method of travel other t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, as to, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2443.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85685884692 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40772950428 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.347912524851 0.468620217663 74% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 755.1 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.4220698193 57.8364921388 146% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.578947368 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4736842105 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.57894736842 5.70786347227 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.310705278307 0.218282227539 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120544393276 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0863383459913 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213274669459 0.128457276422 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0882934888894 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.