037 Woven baskets characterized by a particular

[Bakhtak]

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 unique to 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 only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.

 

The evidences presented in this argument seem to be enough for the conclusion that the palean baskets were not unique to Palea; however, there are other possibilities which the author fail to consider and need to be cited to strengthen the inference.

 

The most important thing which should to be specified is that if the Palean basket, founded in Lithos, has been there from long time ago. It is possible that thousands of years later, when the boats where developed, someone has taken it to the Lithos and it has been there since then. Thus, it is important to be clarified that the Woven baskets has been there since the old Palean people era.

 

Also, the argument says that “archaeologists discovered such a “Palean” basket in Lithos.” Does it mean that the baskets are original historical remains? Perhaps they are modern woven baskets with the characteristic texture and pattern of old Palean baskets.

 

Moreover, we know that there is a wide and deep river which separate Palea and Lithos, but we are not sure that this river has been in their era. Even if we know that there river is as old as Palean people era, What is the evidences to prove that it has been as wide and deep as now? The river may have broadened and deepened through these years. In that case any body may have taken the Woven baskets across the sallow river of that time.

 

Finaly, it is not impossible that a light object like woven basket has been traveled across the river by itself. If someone throw such basket to the river, it is possible that the basket be trapped in other side of the river, at downstream.

In sum, if the above possibilities have been considered, they should be cited in order to convince the reader that the Palean baskets were not really unique to the village of Palea.

 

[AmigoRo]

Originally posted by Bakhtak

 

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 unique to 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 only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.

 

The evidences We usually use evidence in the singular form presented in this argument seem to be enough for the conclusion that the palean baskets were not unique to Palea;. hHowever, there are other possibilities which the author fail to consider and need to be cited to strengthen the inference.

 

Decent opening paragraph.

 

The most important thing which should to be specified is that if the Palean basket, founded in Lithos, has been there from long time ago. It is possible that thousands of years later, when the boats where developed, someone has taken it to the Lithos and it has been there since then. Thus, it is important to be clarified that the Woven baskets has been there since the old Palean people era.

 

Good point.

 

Also, the argument says that “archaeologists discovered such a “Palean” basket in Lithos.” Does it mean that the baskets are original historical remains? Perhaps they are modern woven baskets with the characteristic texture and pattern of old Palean baskets.

 

I think an archaeologist would know a modern basket when he sees one, unless he has been fooled.

 

Moreover, we know that there is a wide and deep river which separate Palea and Lithos, but we are not sure that this river has been in their era. Even if we know that there river is as old as Palean people era, What is the evidences to prove that it has been as wide and deep as now? The river may have broadened and deepened through these years. In that case any body may have taken the Woven baskets across the shallow river of that time.

 

Maybe

 

Finaly, it is not impossible that a light object like woven basket has been traveled across the river by itself. If someone throw such basket to the river, it is possible that the basket be trapped in other side of the river, at downstream.

 

Possible

 

In sum, if the above possibilities have been considered, they should be cited in order to convince the reader that the Palean baskets were not really unique to the village of Palea.

 

The summary is not very strong.

 

Bakhtak,

 

Your writing has improved tremendously. I found most of your sentences easy to read. There are still few awkward sentences here and there, but they constitute the minority.

 

Your structure is good, and the content is excellent. You have identified a number of weaknesses in the argument.

 

Score: 4.5/6.0

Justification: Good response overall. Language a bit unnatural at times.

[Bakhtak]

Amigoro,

Thank you for your exact review. Your precise critique has been very helpfull in improving my essay

 

Bakhtak

[kamakshi]

The author in this argument describes about woven baskets characterized by distinctive pattern found in the immediate vicinity of Palean village. These were believed to be Paleans. However, later archaeological studies have revealed those baskets to be found in Lithos. This raised the validity of previous beliefs that the baskets belonged to Palean's. At a first glance, the conclusion of the author about the authenticity of the baskets belonging to Lithos seems convincing but after careful examination the argument suffers from few fallacies.

First, the author mentions that the baskets were recently discovered in Lithos. The time period is not mentioned. Was this discovered thousands of years after boats were introduced between both the villages. If that is the case, perhaps they were transported from Palean to Lithos. To better analyze the situation the argument should described if the basket was available during the Palean age.

Second, the author states that Brim River is too deep and broad for the Paleans to cross. However, from the argument it is not clear if the discovery of the river by archaeologists was made recently or it existed in prehistoric time. May be there was so river earlier. It was just plain land and people could exchange goods. May be it was a shallow river at that time and people could easily cross it without the help of boats. As nothing is clear, the argument's validity is questionable.

Third, for the sake of the argument let us assume there was a river separating the two villages. Even then the baskets are light objects that could easily float on the river. It is quiet possible that someone in the Palean village just played with few baskets and threw them into the Brim river which over the course of time got carried away by wind and waves to reach Lithos. It is also possible that there may be a bridge which people used to travel to Lithos. May be people in Palean village were good swimmers and they tied baskets to their back and swam across the river to transport the goods to Lithos. May be there were some natural calamities like floods or hurricanes which took the baskets form Palean and dropped it in Lithos. Furthermore, may be people in Palean village went to tutor the people in Lithos about the basket weaving skills. These may be woven by Paleans during the training sessions in the village of Lithos.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the absence of concrete evidence or facts in its support. The argument must be substantiated with further research study understanding the existence of the river and the history of the prehistoric age in Palean. The mode of transport people used to commute between the two villages. Using the results of the study the facts can be further analyzed towards bringing a closure and understanding the origin of the unique baskets.

[tractable]

kamakshi

Please rate my argument - Thank You

The author in this argument describes about woven baskets characterized by distinctive pattern found in the immediate vicinity of Palea

n

village. These were believed to be Paleans. However, later archaeological studies have revealed those baskets to be found in Lithos. This raised the validity of previous beliefs that the baskets belonged to Palean's. At a first glance, the conclusion of the author about the authenticity of the baskets belonging to Lithos seems convincing but after careful examination the argument suffers from few fallacies.

 

First, the author mentions that the baskets were recently discovered in Lithos. The time period is not mentioned. Was this discovered thousands of years after boats were introduced between both the villages. If that is the case, perhaps they were transported from Palean to Lithos. To better analyze the situation the argument should describe

d

if the basket was available during the Palean age.

 

Second, the author states that Brim River is too deep and broad for the Paleans to cross. However, from the argument it is not clear if the discovery of the river by archaeologists was made recently or it existed in prehistoric time. May be

there was so river

earlier. It was just plain land and people could exchange goods. May be it was a shallow river at that time and people could easily cross it without the help of boats. As nothing is clear, the argument's validity is questionable.

To me above argument is weak, as both villages are old, one is pre-historic and the other is ancient and non-existence of river is doubtful.

Third, for the sake of the argument let us assume there was a river separating the two villages. Even then the baskets are light objects that could easily float on the river. It is quiet possible that someone in the Palean village just played with few baskets and threw them into the Brim river which over the course of time got carried away by wind and waves to reach Lithos. It is also possible that there may be a bridge which people used to travel to Lithos. May be people in Palean village were good swimmers and they tied baskets to their back and swam across the river to transport the goods to Lithos. May be there were some natural calamities like floods or hurricanes which took the baskets form Palean and dropped it in Lithos. Furthermore, may be people in Palean village went to tutor the people in Lithos about the basket weaving skills. These may be woven by Paleans during the training sessions in the village of Lithos.

some good points above.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the absence of concrete evidence or facts in its support. The argument must be substantiated with further research study understanding the existence of the river and the history of the prehistoric age in Palean. The mode of transport people used to commute between the two villages. Using the results of the study the facts can be further analyzed towards bringing a closure and understanding the origin of the unique baskets.

To me it is 4.5-5.0 essay

Before reading I've tried as below, Pl. comment.

 

Author has taken various assumptions about the basket and the villagers. Lack of sufficient information gives rise to several counter arguments.

 

A Palean basket was found in Lithos, however there is no indication about its condition and how close it resembled the original palean basket. Lithos was another village and there people might have tried to make a woven basket similar to the original palean. It was important to give more detail about the size, shape and appearance of the basket found in Lithos village. Even if it is considered to be the exact match, some informnation about the appearance would have been helpful.

 

Author has considered Brim river very deep and broad assuming the Palean people were not able to cross it. Some information about the depth and breadth is important, only then it can be ruled out that no individual was able to cross it by swimming. In ancient times even the villagers might have used a tree stem and not anything like the modern boat.

 

Material of woven basket is important, it can determine if the basket was able to float on the Brim river and crossed it by itself. Along with material if the basket is tightly woven, the possibility of floating further increases. This may be a possibility and cannot be ruled out wihtout further information as author has mentioned a single basket was found in Lithos which might have come by floating across the river.

 

It is human nature to explore the world, Palean villagers might have some potent people brave enbough to go on crossing the river by any available means and trhereby taking the basket along with them. An indication about the nature of Palean people is important but that is also skipped here.

 

Overall the argument lacks concise information and enough data to support its point of view. Without providing enough details about the woven basket, Brim river and nature of Palean people the argument is weak in convincing the readers.

 

 

[rsaleh]

Can you evaluate this essay please, thanks for your help

 

This arguments suffers from several flaws, which considered together cast doubts on the conclusion that other people besides the Palean made the Woven baskets.

The first point the argument uses to support its conclusion, is the fact that the river is very deep and broad. Even if this is true now, there is no evidence about its state in the past. Maybe it was shallow some thousands years ago. Also, the river's levels may was dependent on the seasons. As a result, it is likely that in the season, where the water level in the river was shallow, the people could cross it to the other side.

Moreover, the argument says that the boats are the only way to cross the river, and there are no boat's evidence was found. This claim ignores the fact that even if no boats discovery was made, this is not a proof that the ancient people didn't use them. Furthermore, the people travel is not the only possible way to move the woven baskets. A basket dropped in the river, could move with the water and end up in the other side of the river.

In sum, the argument depends on unconfirmed assumptions and concludes from them that the woven baskets were not only made by the Palean. Until further clarifications are made, these hypotheses can't guarantee the arguments conclusion.

[stargazer24]

It is wrong to assume that the discovery of a basket which held the same style of pattern as the Palen baskets discredits that the baskets were unquie to the Palean village. Also, the assumption that a deep broad river separating the two villages, is not enough evidence to state the palean baskets originated from either regions. Nor does it prove that the palean pattern is distinct to one region over the other. Factors such as time line, specifically that of the river and migration patterns of both village would help justify the origin of the Palen baskets.

By stating the river is deep and broad the author is trying to justify that the two villages could not have any communication with one another. This may not be the case. First, although no boat remains have been located, this does not prove that they did not exist. Also the author does not state how far the villages were from one another. In addition to the distance, the size of the river is relatively important. Presently the river is deep and broad, this does not necessarily prove that the river was deep and broad during their era. If the rivers size was relatively shallow then communication and trade between the villages could have existed.

Moreover the era of the existence of the two villages also plays a role. Did they coexist? If so and had they had the means to communicate with one another, we can assume an endless possibilities as to why both shared the same pattern. For example, if a women and man were married, the basket could have been a gift among the villages from one family to another. Another possibility is that the basket floated down the river to the Lithos village and then maybe the tribe started incorporating that particular pattern into their weaving designs.

To add on do the idea of movement, the author assumes that the two villages are completely distinct from one another. The author states that no Palen boats existed, but does not confer if Litho boats did exist. A possible explanation could be that the Palen settlers relocated to new area for a better quality of life. This would explain why not Palen boats existed and possibly why Lithos boats did exist. But this like many important factors are not stated in the assumption. So unfortunately the author can not disprove that the Palean baskets were a type of basket that was found in both villages.

Further more the author does not think about natural occurrences, nor is the mention of when each village existed mentioned. Carbon dating would help answer which village existed first but emplying based on a size of a river and the lack of a boat does not suffice.

[olala]

The author concludes that, contrary to the previous belief, Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean because of the recent discovery of such baskets in a different town. The argument is based on several claims that lack substantial evidence, and therefore is unsound as it stands.

 

The author’s first claim--a certain kind of woven baskets was only made by the Palean people-- is based on the finding that those baskets were only found in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea. This argument is unsound in its logic due to a lack of concrete evidence. In other words, the mere statement that “Palean” baskets are only found near Palea does not suffice to warrant the argument that those baskets were only made by Palean. This correlation can be further weakened by many possibilities. For example, is the distinctive pattern on the woven baskets unique to the Palean culture? If it is just some complicated novel pattern, people from other villages might have been able to weave them as well. To prove that those baskets were made only by the Palean people, the author needs to show concrete archaeological findings that no similar pattern was seen anywhere else, and that it is unique to Palean culture. Without this evidence, the author cannot justifiably claim that this kind of woven baskets is only made by Paleans.

 

Second, to argue that the presence of these baskets in the immediate vicinity of the Palea warrants its manufacture by Palean people, the author must provide more information on the nature of the village. Are there any other towns in the neighborhood of Palea? What kind of village was Palea? Was it a commercial center in the region? Maybe there was a market place in or near Palea, where these baskets were brought from other towns to sell, which can explain why these baskets were only found in Palea without claiming that they are made by Paleans. Therefore, to eliminate other possibilities and to strengthen the argument, the author needs to provide evidence that Palea is the only place in the region where this kind of baskets are found and that there are no other reasons for the presence of these baskets other than Palea people making them. It is also essential for the author to show further evidence that the manufacture of the baskets is chronologically corresponding to the living of Palean people. Without ruling out the possibility that the geographical location was once occupied by people other than Paleans, the claim that Palean people make Palean baskets cannot stand.

 

However, the author rejects the previous belief by putting forth the recent archaeological discovery of such as “Palean” baskets in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. He or she reasons that because it was impossible for the Palean people to transport to Lithos, the presence of the “Palean” baskets in another location undermines the previous statement that those baskets were unique to Palean people. The underlying assumption is that the Brim River has existed at least coevally with Palean and Lithos, and that there was no transportation of any kind for the communication and trade between the two villages because of the river until today.

 

A closer scrutiny will show that this assumption is unestablished unless the author can provide further concrete historic account as evidence, because what is available in the passage is insufficient to warrant the validity of the argument. If the Brim River did not exist before, or may not be as deep and broad as it is now, communication between the two towns was possible, in which case the presence of the baskets in Lithos cannot overrun the previous claim that Palean people made those baskets. In addition, the author states that no Palean boats were found, which is so vague and one-sided that one cannot conclude anything about whether commuting between the two towns was possible at all. If archeologist did not find any Palean boats, were there any boats in Lithos? Maybe people from Lithos were able to cross the river and bring Palean baskets back. Also, is it possible that later in time boats were invented, and some pre-historic Palean baskets were transported to the town of Lithos? Without eliminating these possibilities, the author cannot assume that the river prevents the any circulation of baskets outside of Palea, and that those found in Lithos are only made by the locals.

 

To strengthen this argument, the author needs to demonstrate with historic and geographic record that the river has always existed between the two villages, that the depth and broadness of the river requires boats as a way of transportation, and that no such vehicles of transportation were found in both towns. The author also needs to give evidence that the baskets found in Lithos are not transported from Palea later in history. Only by ruling out these possibilities, can the author justifiably claim that people in Lithos can make the same baskets. Nonetheless, to conclude that the “Palean” baskets are not unique to Palea, it would be more convincing to cite more evidence, if possible, that similar baskets are also found somewhere else besides Palea and Lithos.

 

In sum, the author’s argument is unsounded due to a lack of substantive evidence. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to cite clear archaeological evidence and, if possible, statistical data to demonstrate that prior to the discovery of Palean baskets in Lithos, no similar baskets were found anywhere else except Palea. With evidence to rule out other reasons for the presence of these baskets in Palea, such as they are made somewhere else but brought to Palea for sale, the author can comfortably claim that they are only made by Palean people. In addition, in order to refute the previous belief, the author should use historic and geographic accounts to corroborate the statement that the similar baskets found in Lithos are not transported or in any way influenced by the Palea. Specifically, information on the River and the indisputable fact that the river obstructs any communication between two towns should be provided to warrant the conclusion that these baskets are not unique to Paleans.

[olala]

The argument question is:

 

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.

[write2rajul]

The author of this propsal mentions about the prehistoric village of Palea, and supposed that Palean specialised in making woven baskets, however, he himself wasn't sure whether these Palean baskets were or were not uniquely Palean and offers an interesting argument. While the correlations stated are logical, there may be hidden factors in the fact that they were actually the Palean baskets.

 

 

The first flaw lies in the fact that the author mentions about Palean baskets being found only in the immmediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and were thus believed to have been made only by the Palean people.It is not clear that, however, the scope and validity of the above statement. This could be a fact that those baskets were being imported from a distinct village, or may be there have not been enough explorations or researches by the archaeologists in the nearby areas to get a clearer picture. We just do not know that.

 

 

The second flaw lies in the fact that recently archaeologist have discovered such a Palean basket in Lithios an ancient village across the brim river from Palea and thus have weakened the fact that the baskets were being woven by the Palean.This is true, however this is not a strong fact that the baskets were not being made by the Palean. There could be a possibility that they were being taken to the village of Lithios from Palea.

 

 

The third flaw lies in the fact that the argument states that the Brim river across the Palea is very deep and broad and could have been crossed only by the boats, and no such boats were being found, thus the so called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. It is not a very convincing statement and probably the boats were being washed away from the shores due to fast moving water of the river or they were being destroyed. There could be another possibility that these baskets were actually woven by the Palean and were being transported to nearby villages.

 

Examining all the various angles and factors involved with the baskets being Palean or not, the argument does not justify either of the things. While the argument does highlight a possibility that the baskets were being made by the Palean, more information is required to justify it.

[pemdas]

i am seeking the grade 4.5 for the same topic >>>

 

The argument that woven baskets previously deemed as unique to the prehistoric village of Palea have been located in another ancient village across the river from Palea and could not be attributed uniquely to Palea is not entirely logically convincing, because it ignores certain crucial assumptions.

 

First, the argument assumes that geography of certain archeological discovery qualifies its origination and speaks about uniqueness of this discovery to the place of discovery. An author erroneously believes that if some discovery was located in a region X and nowhere else, that discovery must be attributed to the region X only. The analogy of such a fallacious assumption is saying “life on other planets does not exist because we have not observed any living signs on those planets”. Another assumption is made about attributing the woven baskets to Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The author’s geographical qualification extends to researching various causes which may or may not point to the woven baskets being transported from one village to the other. The conclusion made by the author rests on a single premise of water transportation missing in village Palea; consequently the author argues about uniqueness of baskets to Palea, erroneously assuming the land as being flat – otherwise why the baskets could not be transported to the other village from counter side(s) than a river?

 

Second, the argument never addresses the nature of discovery. While the woven baskets are located in Palea, they might be quite unique to Palean people in the way they were woven or if they contained different materials. For example, the same materials may be applied in numerous ways, the different materials may be applied in the same way – all to produce a generalized item, the woven basket. By investigating the nature of woven baskets found in Palea, the author could discriminate and decide on the uniqueness of the woven baskets to Palea.

 

Finally, the argument omits many facts about archeological discoveries themselves. Every archeological finding is a key to another finding. To guarantee that prehistoric ancient village Palea was not preceded by another more ancient settlement put to create the same woven baskets should be specious.

 

Thus the argument is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion - location of the woven baskets in Lithos - does little to prove the conclusion - that these woven baskets are not unique to Palea, because it does not address completely the assumptions already raised. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthened by addressing the nature of woven baskets, possible links between archeological discoveries and the villages Palea and Lithos. The author in his argument could better explain the reasons he believes it is not possible for woven baskets found in Lithos to be transported there from Palea.

[payal c]

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. not convinved by the fact that

 

 

The author in the very first line explains that Palean baskets were distinctive in nature and that although it was

previously believed that they belonged to the regions in and around palea,only the archaeological excavations could

discover a "Palean" basket across the Brim River of Palea, in Lithos.The author supports the argument by citing the

fact that the river was too deep and broad to be covered by swimming hence the basket must have been brought to Lithos

by a boat. He then affirms his argument by casting the fact that no boats could however be discovered from the banks

of Lithos. This was however, just one side of the coin. The argument of the author however did not establish the fact

that the basket was "not" uniquely Palean.

The author could also have supported his stand by focussing on the fact that just one basket (as it was found by the

archaeological survey) could not be the result of a trade, and if it was so, many more baskets could also have been

excavacted from Lithos itself.Further, the authors argument that the "Palean" basket could have been found as a result of

social ties between Palea and Lithos, only if few more items famous of Palea could have been excavated from Lithos.

The author however did not give any details about other such items of exchange.

As explained by the author at the beginning of the paragraph, that Palean baskets were famous in and around Palea,

which meant that Palea was already involved in the exchange of trade, commerce and/or art, which might have resulted into the fame of the Palean baskets

in the entire vicinity of Palea.

Summarising the facts, although the author is convinced that "Palean" baskets were not uniquely Palean, he missed out many of

the obvious facts that could have been a strong support to prove his belief.Moreover, he also failed to rule out any chances of

social relation of Palea with Lithos, which might have been the strongest argument to support his stand.On one hand where he

ruled out any expectations of trade by citing absence of any Palean boat in Lithos, he could not rule out the fact that the

villages around Palea were having considerable ties with Palea, so Lithos could not have been an exception.

[Monica Shankar]

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. not convinved by the fact that

 

 

The author in the very first line explains that Palean baskets were distinctive in nature and that although it was

previously believed that they belonged to the regions in and around palea,only the archaeological excavations could

discover a "Palean" basket across the Brim River of Palea, in Lithos.The author supports the argument by citing the

fact that the river was too deep and broad to be covered by swimming hence the basket must have been brought to Lithos

by a boat. He then affirms his argument by casting the fact that no boats could however be discovered from the banks

of Lithos. This was however, just one side of the coin. The argument of the author however did not establish the fact

that the basket was "not" uniquely Palean.

The author could also have supported his stand by focussing on the fact that just one basket (as it was found by the

archaeological survey) could not be the result of a trade, and if it was so, many more baskets could also have been

excavacted from Lithos itself.Further, the authors argument that the "Palean" basket could have been found as a result of

social ties between Palea and Lithos, only if few more items famous of Palea could have been excavated from Lithos.

The author however did not give any details about other such items of exchange.

As explained by the author at the beginning of the paragraph, that Palean baskets were famous in and around Palea,

which meant that Palea was already involved in the exchange of trade, commerce and/or art, which might have resulted into the fame of the Palean baskets

in the entire vicinity of Palea.

Summarising the facts, although the author is convinced that "Palean" baskets were not uniquely Palean, he missed out many of

the obvious facts that could have been a strong support to prove his belief.Moreover, he also failed to rule out any chances of

social relation of Palea with Lithos, which might have been the strongest argument to support his stand.On one hand where he

ruled out any expectations of trade by citing absence of any Palean boat in Lithos, he could not rule out the fact that the

villages around Palea were having considerable ties with Palea, so Lithos could not have been an exception.

 

hello payal,

 

in plain terms you have not understood the crux of the argument!

 

The author in the very first line explains that Palean baskets were distinctive in nature and that although it was

previously believed that they belonged to the regions in and around palea,only the archaeological excavations could

discover a "Palean" basket across the Brim River of Palea, in Lithos.The author supports the argument by citing the

fact that the river was too deep and broad to be covered by swimming hence the basket must have been brought to Lithos

by a boat. He then affirms his argument by casting the fact that no boats could however be discovered from the banks

of Lithos. This was however, just one side of the coin. The argument of the author however did not establish the fact

that the basket was "not" uniquely Palean.

 

you have paraphrased the entire argument by the author...Remember you are not writing your school exam were the quantity is expected,here only the gist is needed.

 

you could have written as

 

The author of the aforementioned argument entices an observation which apocryphally questions on the originality of 'Woven basket of Palea

 

 

2.The author could also have supported his stand by focussing on the fact that just one basket (as it was found by the

archaeological survey) could not be the result of a trade, and if it was so, many more baskets could also have been

excavacted from Lithos itself.Further, the authors argument that the "Palean" basket could have been found as a result of

social ties between Palea and Lithos, only if few more items famous of Palea could have been excavated from Lithos.

The author however did not give any details about other such items of exchange.

 

This is not a succinct argument as note the use of the word "Recently" in the question.So,it could be that excavations would still be ongoing and many more baskets would be unearthed.

 

also,how did you infer that more than one baskets would result in ties between palea and Lithos,If more baskets were discovered it could mean that either the two villages had ties,or the palean basket pattern was not unique but ubiquitous or palea would have trade realtions with 3rd village X and that X village would have trade relations with Lithos and so this could also be the case for the change of ownership of a/some basket(s).

 

3.As explained by the author at the beginning of the paragraph, that Palean baskets were famous in and around Palea,

which meant that Palea was already involved in the exchange of trade, commerce and/or art, which might have resulted into the fame of the Palean baskets

in the entire vicinity of Palea

 

now why do you require this one???

 

refer question

 

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 .

 

It is usually easy to give a specific evidence and discuss the cases where it might hold the argument presented in the passage as false and where it might fail by itself in any-a-case.But you have taken an evidence from the passage and reverse engineered it.Good try but lacking in insight

 

Also I am a student like you preparing for the GRE.Please do evaluate when I post and please keep in touch with me through fb

https://www.facebook.com/monica.shankar.31

 

Thank you...

[salles]

Could you please rate my essay? thank you very much!!!

 

The following argument if flawed for many reasons. Primarly,

the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that

the baskets could not have been transported from Palean

village to Lithos.

 

First, the argument states that since no Palean boat

have been found and since Brim river is deep, then Palean

people could not have reached Lithos village. The fact

that no Palean boat have been found does not warrant that

no Palean boat have existed. Maybe these boats actually

existed but they were destroyed. The argument would have

been stronger had it provided more proofs that Paleans

boats really did not existed.

 

Second, even if Palean people were not able to build

boats, the baskets could have been transported to Lithos

village using boats from other civilizations. For example,

Lithos people could have built their own boats, crossed the

river and, then, got the baskets from Palean village. Therefore,

the inexistence of Palean boats does not warrant that Lithos

people did not have access to Palean baskets. The argument could

have been improved if the author provided evidences that

no other boats able to cross Brim River existed.

 

Finally, even if no boats have existed during the epoque

these civilizations existed, Palean people could have found

other ways to reach Lithos village. For example, they could have

found another path to Lithos that crossed the river in a point

where the water is more shallow. Palean people could even have

found a path to Lithos that did not cross the Brim River. Again,

the author of the argument could have made it stronger by giving

proofs that there were no other ways to Palean people reach

Lithos village.

 

Because the arguments make some unwarranted assumptions, it

fails to make a convincing case that the woven baskets

were made not only by Palean people.

[Monica Shankar]

Could you please rate my essay? thank you very much!!!

 

The following argument if flawed for many reasons. Primarly,

the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that

the baskets could not have been transported from Palean

village to Lithos.

 

First, the argument states that since no Palean boat

have been found and since Brim river is deep, then Palean

people could not have reached Lithos village. The fact

that no Palean boat have been found does not warrant that

no Palean boat have existed. Maybe these boats actually

existed but they were destroyed. The argument would have

been stronger had it provided more proofs that Paleans

boats really did not existed.

 

Second, even if Palean people were not able to build

boats, the baskets could have been transported to Lithos

village using boats from other civilizations. For example,

Lithos people could have built their own boats, crossed the

river and, then, got the baskets from Palean village. Therefore,

the inexistence of Palean boats does not warrant that Lithos

people did not have access to Palean baskets. The argument could

have been improved if the author provided evidences that

no other boats able to cross Brim River existed.

 

Finally, even if no boats have existed during the epoque

these civilizations existed, Palean people could have found

other ways to reach Lithos village. For example, they could have

found another path to Lithos that crossed the river in a point

where the water is more shallow. Palean people could even have

found a path to Lithos that did not cross the Brim River. Again,

the author of the argument could have made it stronger by giving

proofs that there were no other ways to Palean people reach

Lithos village.

 

Because the arguments make some unwarranted assumptions, it

fails to make a convincing case that the woven baskets

were made not only by Palean people.

 

salles,,that's a pretty good argument...But I can easily infer your flaws from your thesis..

 

You have not given much of a thought and have clung onto the boat theory....and markedly you have gone wrong in that too!!!

 

ok here is how

 

 

First, the argument states that since no Palean boat

have been found and since Brim river is deep, then Palean

people could not have reached Lithos village. The fact

that no Palean boat have been found does not warrant that

no Palean boat have existed. Maybe these boats actually

existed but they were destroyed. The argument would have

been stronger had it provided more proofs that Paleans

boats really did not existed.

 

 

 

Good one but don't you think that you are making tooooo much of an assumption????Boats existed and get destroyed for no reason but you are able to mine out woven baskets from Lithios....

 

Second, even if Palean people were not able to build

boats, the baskets could have been transported to Lithos

village using boats from other civilizations. For example,

Lithos people could have built their own boats, crossed the

river and, then, got the baskets from Palean village. Therefore,

the inexistence of Palean boats does not warrant that Lithos

people did not have access to Palean baskets. The argument could

have been improved if the author provided evidences that

no other boats able to cross Brim River existed.

 

 

Refer the question And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river

 

Imagine the bedazzlement or the stupor of pa leans to find futuristic cool modes of transport that Lithians used and they actually 'develop them thousand years later'...nope sorry this is a bad argument!!!YOu did'nt read the question properly!!!

 

 

Finally, even if no boats have existed during the epoque

these civilizations existed, Palean people could have found

other ways to reach Lithos village. For example, they could have

found another path to Lithos that crossed the river in a point

where the water is more shallow. Palean people could even have

found a path to Lithos that did not cross the Brim River. Again,

the author of the argument could have made it stronger by giving

proofs that there were no other ways to Palean people reach

Lithos village.

 

 

pretty good but you could have used more effective connotation

 

 

overall I would give this 3/6.Just be patient to read it.Recapitulate as many time as needed and allocate first 5 min to brainstrom on the arguments that you would use to construct upon

 

https://www.facebook.com/monica.shankar.31

 

 

 

[salles]

Hi Monica,

 

Thank you very much for the valuable tips!

[

QUOTE=Monica Shankar;954521]

First, the argument states that since no Palean boat

have been found and since Brim river is deep, then Palean

people could not have reached Lithos village. The fact

that no Palean boat have been found does not warrant that

no Palean boat have existed. Maybe these boats actually

existed but they were destroyed. The argument would have

been stronger had it provided more proofs that Paleans

boats really did not existed.

 

Good one but don't you think that you are making tooooo much of an assumption????Boats existed and get destroyed for no reason but you are able to mine out woven baskets from Lithios....

 

 

Good point! I should have explained why the boats may have been destroyed. For example, maybe they were carried by the river and decomposed due to the long exposition to water.

Second, even if Palean people were not able to build

boats, the baskets could have been transported to Lithos

village using boats from other civilizations. For example,

Lithos people could have built their own boats, crossed the

river and, then, got the baskets from Palean village. Therefore,

the inexistence of Palean boats does not warrant that Lithos

people did not have access to Palean baskets. The argument could

have been improved if the author provided evidences that

no other boats able to cross Brim River existed.

 

 

Refer the question And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river

 

 

 

Oops... I did not notice that the question in this topic is slightly different from the question I read. The question I read does not have the sentence you mentioned.

 

Here is the original question:

 

“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.”

 

Again, thank you very much for the help!

[mandymorgan]

I'd be glad if somebody could rate my essay. Thanks!!!

 

The argument proposed is full of deductions. Many of the evidences presented are not strong enough to justify their beliefs and end up being mere theories instead of affirmations.

 

First of all, the claim that the woven baskets must have been made only the Palean people is a fallacy. A place that an object is found is not a eloquent reason to suppose that it was made by the people living in its surroundings. To illustrate, another reason to justify the basket location is merely transportation by other people. It could have been given to them as a gift. Also, Palean people could indeed be responsible to the creation of the baskets, but the same technique could have been used by other villages. Therefore, even if they had really created the basket, it would not guarantee that they were the only ones doing such work.

 

Secondly, is also very important to highlight that the fact boats were not found does not mean that they did not exist. As we know archaeologists keep discovering new items all the time. New archaeological discoveries are not easy and require a lot of research and digging. Thus, not finding the boat can be due to many different reasons, one of them being that they have never existed. At the same time, the boats could be in a different location that was not yet explored by the archaeologists.

Another argument that is important to discuss is the claim that because the Brim River is very deep and board it could not have been crossed. It is a well-known fact that board rivers and oceans are constantly crossed by athletes during competitions. Based on that fact only we can invalidated the argument that the river was only crossible by boat. On the top of that, the fact that the river is deep presently does not mean that it had the same constitution in the past. Therefore, we can conclude that if the river have had sand banks it could have been very easy to get from one side to the other.

 

Finally, the argument that the Palean people have crossed or not the river does not prove that they were responsible or not by creating the baskets. As we discussed before there are many other variables to consider before affirming the origins of the woven baskets.

[mjmccoy1007]

Hi guys,

 

My name is Marty, and I live in Chicago. I am preparing to apply to Public Policy schools a year from now. I took the GRE once before without preparing adequately for the AW section, so I'm trying to get feedback on practice essays before I re-test. Your constructive criticism will be much appreciated, and I will be happy to look over essays for others as well. Please find my first essay below:

 

Q: “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.”

A: The author claims that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean, since one was found in Lithos, a village on the other side of the very broad and deep Brim River, which you can only cross by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Upon closer examination of the underlying assumptions needed to substantiate this claim, several questions must be answered in order to convince me.

 

The author supports his argument with the fact that no Palean boats have been found, claiming that the woven basket found in Lithos, if it is Palean, could only have gotten there from Palea by way of an ancient Palean boat. But maybe the people of Lithos had boats to come to Palea and engage in trade. It is also possible that the boats were made of a grassy material that decomposed long ago. The fact that no one has found Palean boats, or correctly identified one as such, does not mean that they did not exist.

 

Furthermore, assuming that Paleans had no boats in order to claim that the basket found in Lithos was not Palean assumes that there was no other way for goods to flow between the two villages than by boat. Other plausible means of transporting baskets across the river might have existed: perhaps these ancient people knew of a narrow point on the river where they could cross; maybe the baskets were light enough to float across; the river itself might have even been small enough to wade through during the era in which Palea made baskets.

 

The claim that the Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean would be strengthened by further evidence supporting the lack of trade across The Brim River between Palea and Lithos. For example, citing an archaeological survey of the region which found no evidence of boats would bolster the idea that there was no boat traffic. Research on the climate cycles the region has gone through might prove that The Brim River has always been as broad and deep an obstacle as it is today. If so, then I might be more convinced that the origin of the basket found in Lithos was somewhere other than Palea.

 

The lack of evidence of Palean boats, along with the description of the formidable obstacle that is The Brim River, raise more questions than they answer. I would like to see information disproving the existence of trade in the Palea region. The idea that the Palean baskets were not only made in Palea may be true; however, I am not convinced as of yet, since the author’s conclusion is based on assumptions which, as they were presented in the passage, are unfounded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

Marty

[james21]

Hi all,

Please evaluate my AWA essay too so I can know at what level of AWA score it stands and leave any hints that will be helpful in improving it to the level of 5 and above. Thanks! :)

 

The author presents two contradicting theories questioning the uniqueness and originality of the so called 'Palean' baskets. The author start by infering that due to the region of discovery of the Palean baskets, their originality could be linked to the Palean village until it is mentioned that similar baskets were found in the Lithos village across the river Brim, contradicting the initial inference.

 

In order to incisively affirm the author's assumption regarding the basket to be pre-historically Palean (or not), one needs to verify the source(s) of the information about the discovery of such baskets. An objective (or subjective) list of the reports that the author reviewed and the archeological agencies involved in producing them. The author counteractively mentions about the discovery of similar baskets in the 'ancient' village of Lithos. It is then proved that the baskets may actually not be unique to the Palean village based on a few facts as discussed blow:

The river separating the two villages, called Brim is too deep and broad implying that it could have only been crossed by using a boat. It is then inferred based on the fact that 'no boats are found', the Paleans would never have been able to cross the river, suggesting that there was no way the Lithoeans could have known about the 'Palean' baskets, concievably making it their own work.

The above argument engenders ambivalence about the kind of research done in this regards and the reliability of the source of the information on the kind of boats, if any, discovered in and around the region so far.

 

Nevertheless, not finding any boat around the said region is still not a conclusive evidence that the Paleans must not have reached Lithos. A few theories that may contradict the author's assumptions and support the point are, crossing the Brim river may not be the only way to get to Lithos. For example - as it is with many places around the world - a city or village situated on the bank of a river can also be reached by circumventing the river's origin without actually crossing it.

 

Another point that can be juxtaposed on the author's assertion is: What if Paleans were skilled swimmers and were actually able cross the river; may be once? There may also be a possiblity that the basket itself floated across to Lithos, spreading the artifact.

 

It could also be possible that the boats used by the Paleans were not unique to them as the author mentions that there were no 'Palean' boats found. If there are other boats found, it could be a possiblity that they were used by the Paleans to cross the river.

 

Hence, unless the author substantiates the claims made by providing discrete and convincing evidence about the validity and details of the report. The chronological assertions made about the existence of the the baskets. And also rules out the possiblities of the basket or its source could not have reached the village of Lithos in any way. If convinding proofs and sources are cited while making such assumptions, the author’s stand about the authenticity of the ‘Palean’ baskets being Palean or not would be better substantiated.

[Note Krab]

Hello GRE fellow,

This is my first essay on urch forum - writing under 30 minutes limit.

Please advise how I could improve my essay and I will keep looking at other GRE pal's responses.

 

 

The author convinces that the Palean Baskets were not uniquely Palean because the baskets recently found in the place separated from the prehistoric village of Palea by the river. Nevertheless, I found the author's reasoning have several flaws.

 

 

Firstly, another ancient village - where recently found Palean baskets besides the prehistoric village of Palea- is located in another bank of Brim river. Hence, the author claims no way that the Palean could cross the river without the boat- unfortunately the boat were not found anywhere. To weaken this argument, what we see as the Brim River today- very deep and broad - could not really used to be in the era when Palean once lived. Noone could deny that The geological structure keep changing everyday - shoreline deteriorated to the sea, the small canal to the broad river or vice versa due to many factors i.e. Raining amount, earth temperature. As a result, in that time, the Brim River could be only a small canal which Palean could walk across with ease -in other words separated Brim River today once was a united city together in the Palean era. As you can see, finding the palean basket across the brim river bank today does not necessary imply the palean basket was not made by the Palean. Palean could travel across the Brim canal as their normal activities. So more geological history study is needed to confirm the assumption that the Brim River in Palean Era is same as the Brim River today.

 

 

However, even the Brim river have not been changed from that time. No boat founded does not mean no boat existed. One possible scenario is that the boat made by Palean - surely made from natural stuff as wood - could be deteriorated or inevitably damaged due to long-exposure to the air and water. Unlike the boat today which made from undamageable steel or alloy - which is the result of the latest technology. So you can see that assuming no boat found means the Palean Basket in another bank of Brim river is the resulf of other troops could be implausible. Without the proof that the Palean boat made from something could not be devastated overtime, the author claims is not acceptable.

 

 

Lastly, even the above reasoning made by the author is sensible or possible, the claim by the author still is not true. The reason is that the place where some ancient man-made things fiund does not indicate that place should be the place where they was made. Seeing from today's life - which trading is in every people ordinary life. So does the Palean could have traded their product to other troops by exchanging with something they need; for instance, food or medicine. As a result, without more information about the trading history or neighboring troop to the palean did not exist. The conclusion made by the author is not convincing.

 

 

In conclusion, assuming the Palean Basket could be made by the other besides Palean is not plausible without the evidence that the Brim river have not been altered over time, the palean boat made from something not wood that could last long until today and lastly no trading history existed in the Palean era. As a result, the conclusion made by the author is not acceptable.