The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.
“Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures.”
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 claims that a recent interview with children from Tertia refutes Dr. Field preciding findings; the interview seems to be enough of evidence for the author to base his many unprooven assumptions to their conclusion that contradict the original research. The argument also reveals examples of leaps of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The argument is, thus, week for several inherent flaws.
First, the argument mention Dr. Field’s observations. there is no account of the scientific method that these observations were based upon. If Dr. Karp, the writer of the new study, would have provide a comparision between his field study method and the method performed by Field, the reader could have much better picture of the validity of both the studies. But, from a reason that is not clear from the passague, Dr. Karp does not mention the scientific methods performed by dr. Field.
Additionaly, The scientific method of Karp’s study itself is insufficient for a valid scientific data. The finding of Karp are based on interviews. the interviews are full of logical flaws. For example, the children say they spend much more time talking about their parents. But there is no evidence that Karp bothered to verify that what the childrren say and the reality are aligned. Furthermore, even if they do talk more about their parents, it does not show enough information to negate the possibility that these children are still being reared by the community.
Furthermore, here Karp goes by in a major ill faithed leap and claims that emprical evidence that is based on “observation-centered” approach is wrong and that interview-center is the way researches should be conducted. of course, to base such a statement purly on one or even few interviews is not likely to be true. And this is on the verge of charletaun. It is not expected from a scientific paper of any field to be so dubious. And there are so many flaws in Karp logic, method, and presentations, not to mention his eccentric end egocentric deductions that Karp article is clearly fail to have any scientific substance. The arguement is based on assumptions which are clearly wrong. And on evidence which is clearly partial and/or insufficient; usually both.
To conclude, Karp findings where unprofessional from the bottom up. Karp seems to do anything backward in this paper. Massive generalization from minimal evidence. All in order to disprove Field observation-centric approach which Karp provide almost no information about. Alltogether, looking on evidence, it is really hard to agree with Karp’s conclustions. A better research of Karp would try to check assumptions and verify facts, before jumping to hasty conclustions. “Better safe than sorry”.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 365, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The argument is, thus, week for several inh...
^^^
Line 3, column 60, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: There
... mention Dr. Field's observations. there is no account of the scientific method ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 199, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...the writer of the new study, would have provide a comparision between his field study m...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 154, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...inding of Karp are based on interviews. the interviews are full of logical flaws. F...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Two successive sentences begin with the same adverb. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...till being reared by the community. Furthermore, here Karp goes by in a major ill fait...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 46, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ermore, here Karp goes by in a major ill faithed leap and claims that emprical ev...
^^
Line 7, column 232, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Of
...the way researches should be conducted. of course, to base such a statement purly ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'if', 'look', 'really', 'so', 'still', 'thus', 'for example', 'of course', 'talking about']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.258188824663 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.152215799615 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0944123314066 0.0836205057962 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0539499036609 0.0520304965353 104% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0231213872832 0.0272364105082 85% => OK
Prepositions: 0.107899807322 0.125424944231 86% => OK
Participles: 0.0308285163776 0.0416121511921 74% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.2650379742 2.79052419416 117% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0308285163776 0.026700313972 115% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0944123314066 0.113004496875 84% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00770712909441 0.0255425247493 30% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0154142581888 0.0127820249294 121% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2792.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 444.0 446.07635468 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28828828829 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.371621621622 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.281531531532 0.287650121315 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.216216216216 0.208842608468 104% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.146396396396 0.135150697306 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2650379742 2.79052419416 117% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 207.018472906 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515765765766 0.469332199767 110% => OK
Word variations: 59.1183837804 52.1807786196 113% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 16.4444444444 23.2022227129 71% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.6719717438 57.7814097925 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.407407407 141.986410481 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4444444444 23.2022227129 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.481481481481 0.724660767414 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 3.58251231527 195% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 44.5975975976 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 1.73109243697 1.8405768891 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288621667335 0.441005458295 65% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.119209195905 0.135418324435 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0869905151546 0.0829849096947 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.488431416733 0.58762219726 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.131152318148 0.147661913831 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0976878419259 0.193483328276 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0594941076994 0.0970749176394 61% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.380178679594 0.42659136922 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.042255891604 0.0774707102158 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192303656217 0.312017818177 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0645217011967 0.0698173142475 92% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: This is not the final score. 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.