Can you grade my argument essay, plz?

[Radwa]

This is my first attempt to write an argument essay ever! so I was hoping that someone would tell me the deficiencies of my writing style, organization, grammar, structure, and most importantly my argument skills, if I have any, considering that English is not my second language. Thanks in advance.

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.

---

The argument stated in the paragraph includes a number of presumptions that are mostly far from logical coherence. The author’s conclusion is driven from logical fallacies, as can be shown in the relation between the cause and effect the author has confirmed. The author concludes that the “so-called” Palean baskets have not actually been Palean. Such conclusion is derived from some premises, such as archaeologists finding the mentioned baskets in Lithos which is separated from Palea by a deep and broad river. The author also disposes that such river can never be crossed by Paleans, unless they have had boats which have never been found in the area. The author has also some unstated assumptions from which they drive their conclusion. Such assumptions, premises, and conclusion shall be refuted in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, regarding the author’s mentioning archaeologists’ opinions, such as evidence appears to be faulty as it indicates a survey fallacy. As for the archaeologists have never been able to discover Palean baskets in Lithos, this can never be considered as concrete evidence, as there are many methods for woven baskets to be transported during the ancient eras. Such methods of transportation may include animals, bridges, some kind of vehicles, among other things. In addition, the author never mentions any numbers resulting from the archaeologists’ survey. Also, there is no evidence that there has not been any commercial transactions between the two cities, Lithos and Palea, in which such baskets were transported. As such, the author should have mentioned commercial transactions between the two cities, as a premise which they could have driven a more concrete conclusion as well as evidence.

Secondly, the author mentions the deep and broad Brim River separating Lithos from Palea as an obstacle for Paleans to cross to the other side, and hence, hindering them from transporting their crafted baskets to Lithos. Such premise is not based on sound evidence, as rivers can be crossed by bridges for instance. The author also never assumes that the Paleans could have used animals as a means of transportation during the elder times. Furthermore, the Palean baskets could have been drifted to Lithos by an act of nature. Moreover, the author never assumes that an ancient river is subject (prone) to geographical and natural factors that may cause it to deepen or widen. Some rivers can even be eroded during a long period of time. Thus, the author’s evidence that is bolstered by the depth and broadness of the Brim River is not a strong one, as it disregards many geographical and natural fators.   

Thirdly, the author builds his/her conclusion on yet another fallacious assumption which is that the Paleans have never built any vessels, as no boats have been found in the area. Such assumption is built according to unproven results of some unknown surveys. Are the mentioned archaeologists specialized in studying the debris of ancient woven baskets or that of ancient vessels? What is the author’s proof that the area has been excavated for debris of ancient vessels? The paragraph never reveals any evidence regarding the premise that Paleans would not have crossed the deep river merely because no boats have been found. Therefore, such assumption is based on a survey fallacy.

Lastly, the author’s evidence is not adequately sound to be the basis on which they can build a conclusion. Assuming that the baskets are not Palaen needs more concrete evidence, for instance surveys made by specialists or a study of the geographical and historical characteristics of the area. Such requirements are not provided by the author’s proposition. Thus, the paragraph lacks a concrete premise, convincing evidence, and a rationally drawn conclusion.