The assertion made in the given prompt regarding the uniquely styled ‘Palean’ baskets. It is definitively asserted that they are not Palean at all based on few assumptions. However, the conclusion made by the author of this prompt might hold water as it rests on some of the unfounded assumptions if not substantiated, dramatically weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. The given assumptions can be substantiated by using few aspects by the author.
Firstly, the author says that the Lithos found in the village across the Brim River from Palea mentions about the woven basket. But, it is not mentioned or thought how effectively or in what context this was mentioned in the Lithos. It may assert that the village across the river makes the woven baskets. It might also be the unique kind of basket that is being originated in that particular village in it’s rustic styles without even knowing the existence of the Palean basket. There might be a misinterpretation of this conjecture by the author in this prompt questioning the origin of that basket.
Moreover, the author mentions that there is no way to cross the Brim River that separates the two villages as it is broad and deep. But, this makes lesser sense as the ancient men undoubtedly knew the other techniques too to cross the river if they couldn’t make boats. They could swim or build a bridge which might have collapsed, not being able to recognize by the author. Thus this might be the strong point on which the author has to hover over in order to come over the second conclusion.
Even though the assertion made by the author regarding absence of boats kind of goad us to question the originality of the baskets, that might not be the aspect to attribute it to that. The Palean baskets are designed in their unique manner. The word of mouth might have spread their aesthetic styles to more than it’s vicinity. That might also have made those ancient sketchers on the Lithos to mention about that Basket.
In a nutshell, on asserting that the Palean baskets are not really Palean by the author of the prompt, may come to the second decision : more data is needed before a firm conclusion to be reached. If the author answers or substantiates more clearly about the above given examples, it will be possible to fully evaluate the validity of the argument.
- Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall stu 82
- The table shows the number of overseas students enrolling in language schools in Australia between 1996 and 1998 and the geographical area from where they come. 67
- We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because it is known for its wide selection of books on all subjects. Clearly, opening th 89
- Argument Topic: The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News: "The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they w 55
- Essay topic: In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department 82
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 02
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 1885 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.666 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.544 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 76 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 53 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.573 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 157, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...asserted that they are not Palean at all based on few assumptions. However, the c...
^^
Line 1, column 275, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... prompt might hold water as it rests on some of the unfounded assumptions if not substantia...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 381, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... being able to recognize by the author. Thus this might be the strong point on which...
^^^^
Line 7, column 429, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he Lithos to mention about that Basket. In a nutshell, on asserting that the Pal...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 350, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... evaluate the validity of the argument.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, really, regarding, second, so, thus, as to, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1960.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 403.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8635235732 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74660139689 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464019851117 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 604.8 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1053947366 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.157894737 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2105263158 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57894736842 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118153710054 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0446354436384 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390449948549 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0720090175721 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372428421553 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.