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.
In the above argument, the author first states that woven baskets with a particular pattern were of Palean style but then refutes this fact because of the discovery of a similar basket in Lithos. He directly claims that the discovery of “Palean” baskets in Lithos implies that the baskets, commonly known as Palean Baskets were not uniquely Palean. However, he doesn’t give a concrete evidence and hence his conclusion seems unwarranted.
Firstly, the distinctive pattern of baskets found in Palea means that these baskets are endemic to Palea itself. The discovery of just one basket in Lithos doesn’t make it native to Lithos. Also, the author does not mention the era of the Palean civilization or the time when the River Brim took shape. The author’s assumption that the River Brim shaped before the woven basket came into being can be wrong. In that case, the basket could have been easily carried to Lithos from Palea. Also, he assumes that the river never dried up or there were no changes in the geographical pattern of the river that might have made it easier for the humans to cross it. However, one can’t dismiss this possibility of geographical metamorphosis. Hence, the conclusion seems pre-empted.
Secondly, just like archaeologists have recently espied a basket in Lithos, we cannot completely rule out the possibility of the discovery of the Palean boats in the near future. No finding does not mean no existence. If this happens, it will lead the author to reexamine his conclusion. Hence, unless and until sound evidences are gathered, one can’t infer that the baskets are not unique and belonging to the Palean culture. Also, as no boat was found in Palea, the author preconceives that it was impossible to carry the basket to Lithos. However, he does not consider the possibility that the people in Lithos might have boats during that time and they carried the basket to Lithos when they sailed there from Palea. It is not necessary that the baskets have to be carried by humans itself. There might have been natural calamities when the baskets were translocated to Lithos.
Finally, the contingency that the people from Lithos tried to copy the Palean style and the basket discovered in Lithos might be made by them only after they had seen the Palean basket cannot be ignored.
Thus, in totality, by the mere discovery of a basket in Lithos, one can’t question the uniqueness of the basket with reference to Palea. Hence, nothing conclusive can yet be stated unless further evidences are discerned.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In the above argument, the author first ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ence his conclusion seems unwarranted. Firstly, the distinctive pattern of bask...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ce, the conclusion seems pre-empted. Secondly, just like archaeologists have ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...baskets were translocated to Lithos. Finally, the contingency that the people...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'with reference to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.245283018868 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.159329140461 0.15541462614 103% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0545073375262 0.0836205057962 65% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0649895178197 0.0520304965353 125% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0398322851153 0.0272364105082 146% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.125786163522 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0377358490566 0.0416121511921 91% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.61927906825 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0272536687631 0.026700313972 102% => OK
Particles: 0.0020964360587 0.001811407834 116% => OK
Determiners: 0.121593291405 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.020964360587 0.0255425247493 82% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0083857442348 0.0127820249294 66% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2587.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 425.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.08705882353 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.378823529412 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.242352941176 0.287650121315 84% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.148235294118 0.208842608468 71% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.108235294118 0.135150697306 80% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61927906825 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 207.018472906 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447058823529 0.469332199767 95% => OK
Word variations: 48.4597471633 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 19.3181818182 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8443513741 57.7814097925 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.590909091 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3181818182 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.636363636364 0.724660767414 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 43.5534759358 51.9672348444 84% => OK
Elegance: 1.54761904762 1.8405768891 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.467370200699 0.441005458295 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.104742500705 0.135418324435 77% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0873593050259 0.0829849096947 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.531982721104 0.58762219726 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.207733068613 0.147661913831 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.183063359877 0.193483328276 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954661248641 0.0970749176394 98% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.51814521912 0.42659136922 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.135712434363 0.0774707102158 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321932276651 0.312017818177 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0584754575094 0.0698173142475 84% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.82512315271 269% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 11.0 2.82389162562 390% => Less neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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 to cover all aspects.