The mentioned argument firstly attributes the origin of an ancient basket to Palea and later, based on founded similar baskets and difficulties for taking this basket to a near village to Palea named Lithos, claims that this basket might not belong to only Palea. I personally was not convinced that this basket was not exclusively woven in Plea. In fact, this argument is flawed for numerous reasons that I will discuss in depth.
Firstly, the author wrongly concludes that transportation was not feasible between Palea and Lithos since their boats might have been disappeared by any means. This issue frequently happens near seas; for instance, the water might damage a boat and convey the remnants using the flow of water to other places. Corrosion, a natural cause, could have destroyed their boat, if any, during past decades. It should be noted that the age of this basket is unknown which makes it hard for us to discuss about the causes to the disappearance of a hypothetical boat.
Moreover, the fact that this basket belongs to Palean rests under the assumption that it was found near an ancient village with valuable history. This assumption might not be true since the author himself considers the fact that this basket might have been exported to from Palea. Thus, although it seem more reasonable to assign this ancient basket to Palea, we can consider that this basket could have been created in other places neat Palea.
Thirdly, only transportation by means of water has been considered by the writer of this argument, which is incomplete. The communication means between Palea and Lithos should be comprehensively investigated and discussed in this argument to persuade readers. Archaeologists are required to examine other likely ways for communication between these two villages in order to reach a more accurate conclusion about the possibility of exporting this basket from Palea to Lithos. To strengthen the argument, archaeologists have to determine the origin of this basket.Then, they should search for the uniqueness and exportation of this artifact to other locations.
In sum, despite several assumptions mentioned in this argument, I couldn’t convince myself about the origin of this basket since this argument not thoroughly investigated. Further, these flawed assumptions creates this argument unreliable.
- No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study. 66
- "We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning." 16
- The following appeared in a newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis. "in Megalopolis, the number of law school graduates who went to work for large, corporate firms declined by 15% over the last three years, whereas an increasing num 70
- 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, archa 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 301, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'seems'?
Suggestion: seems
...orted to from Palea. Thus, although it seem more reasonable to assign this ancient ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 564, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Then
... to determine the origin of this basket.Then, they should search for the uniqueness ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 661, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on of this artifact to other locations. In sum, despite several assumptions ment...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, moreover, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for instance, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1983.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30213903743 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80796660017 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.502673796791 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 601.2 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.8588241312 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.9375 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.375 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.159306510255 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0651748943857 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534405033269 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102765891741 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0564881482572 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
---------------------
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.