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 author of article Dr. Karp states that the perviously conducted research on children rearing in island of Tertia was fallacies, which was conducted by Dr. Field. He condemns, not only the conclusions but also the method that was used in previous research. But the argument falls short of evidence, whose imapct is discussed further, otherwise the argument would have been sound and reliable.
To begin with, when Dr. Karp mentions that interviewing the children of Tertia elicits that they talk about their parents more than they talk about other adults, he has not given any additional detail to eliminate the probability of this behaviour being result of rearing by the whole village. The pupil might be doing so as repercussions of missing their parents and not being able to spend time with them. Talking about parents and discussing them might have made them feel comfortable and that is why they have made a habit of their's.
Additionally, author has been very desperate in refuting the previous research, this can be observed by the conjuctures he has made, when stating that the method of observation as well as the observations made by earlier researcher are both wrong. The mere evidence to support this, that Dr. Karp has provided, is his interviews with childrens. But to conclude that previous research was fallacious he would need more than that. Details discerning the flaws incoporated in research based on observations would have made the argument impeccable.
Moreover, 20 years is a long time for any tradition to survive, the village might have curbed previous culture, and have adopted to a new one, in which only the parents are responsible for upbringing of their children. Their has been no evidence stating that no cultural change was observed in island of Tartia.
However, it might be true that Dr. Field had missjudged the inordinate amount of children's involvement with village people to conclude that children are reared by whole village. But, there is no details about the interviews being conducted by Dr. Karp's team, the interviewers themselves might have been asking a myriad of questions related to interviewees parents. Absence of detail over the nature of interview renders the argument questionable.
Conclusively, for several facts describe above, the scarcity of evidence renders the claim of Dr. Karp baseless and fallacious.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no details'?
Suggestion: there are no details
...ldren are reared by whole village. But, there is no details about the interviews being conducted by...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 276, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cted by Dr. Karps team, the interviewers themselves might have been asking a myri...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, moreover, so, well, talking about, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2003.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 385.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2025974026 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75013791647 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509090909091 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 598.5 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.8394082298 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.1875 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0625 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153840923039 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0538071735693 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0612844226823 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0848176407772 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312244001556 0.0628817314937 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.